Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East

Dr. M. S. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Israel or Arab states in the near future.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have at present no such plans.

Dr. Miller: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, but does he not think that he should visit the middle east? When he does, will he take with him a copy of an interview published in The Guardian on 4 July between David Hirst, the middle east correspondent of The Guardian and Abu Musa, leader of the rebel Palestinian sect in the armed struggle going on within the Palestine Liberation Organisation, in which the rebel leader reaffirmed his commitment to the Palestine national charter, which calls for the elimination of Israel? Does that not present the Israelis with only two possible courses of action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have shorter supplementary questions, please.

Dr. Miller: Does that not pose the Israelis with only two courses of action—either they resist or they connive at their own suicide?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have in mind the desirability of visiting the area as soon as that can reasonably be managed. However, as the House will appreciate, a number of matters of considerable practical urgency occupy one's time during the second half of the year, including the United Nations General Assembly and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, quite apart from the European work programme. The Government are in no doubt that the Palestinian people must play a full part in the negotiations on their future, but, on the other hand, we have long argued that the PLO should accept Israel's right to live in peace and renounce terrorism.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that when our noble Friend Lord Carrington decided to visit Israel there followed a warming of relations between our two countries, which had the effect of making Israel far more receptive to the good ideas that come to it from this country than it ever is when there is coolness between us?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bear my hon. and learned Friend's point in mind.

Mr. Ernie Ross: If the Foreign Secretary visits the middle east, will he reassure all those who are concerned about peace in the area that the PLO is committed to supporting the present leadership of Yasser Arafat, that those who are seeking to interfere with the independence of the PLO are doing so for their own ends, and that it is the Palestine national council that speaks on behalf of the Palestinians, not the rebels in the Beka'a valley?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should hesitate to pronounce judgment on the present or future implications of what is happening in the PLO with as much confidence as does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marlow: Is not the attempt to extend the Jewish settlement in the Palestinian town of Hebron perhaps one of the most insensitive and callous political acts undertaken by any Government on the face of the earth at the moment? As the Americans seem unable to restrain the Israelis, what initiatives will my right hon. and learned Friend or the European Community be taking to stop the Israelis from colonising Palestine and the west bank?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter, although I do not accept his premise that the Americans are unable or unwilling to attempt to restrain undesirable acts in that part of the world. He can rest assured that, together with our partners in the Ten, we shall continue to bring our influence to bear as far as we can.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the Foreign Secretary changes his mind and decides to visit Israel, will he inquire from the Government there what benefits, apart from producing virtual anarchy in the middle east, the unprovoked invasion by Israel of the Lebanor has produced?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is because we understand the thinking behind the hon. Gentleman's question that we are doing all that we can to urge all parties to the Israel-Lebanon agreement to agree to an early withdrawal of their forces.

Mr. George Robertson: May I urge the Foreign Secretary to pay an early visit to the middle east, particularly in the light of the fragile relationships that exist in that area and the great danger to all of us that lies in that strain? Especially in the light of the increasing internal tensions within the PLO, is it not time that the British Government used some of their influence to break the log jam between the United States Government and the Government of the Soviet Union in an effort to ensure that the Soviet Union uses its influence in Syria to see that the Israel-Lebanon agreement is adhered to?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House should not assume from the fact that I have not yet made plans to visit the area that I attach any less importance to the area and its problems than does the hon. Gentleman. He must understand that there are practical limitations that must dictate the timetable. Our potential influence there is of course limited, but, so far as we are able to do so, we shall continue to play the active part that our history and interests dictate in searching for a solution and pressing all the parties concerned to seek one.

Disarmament

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report recent progress at the disarmament negotiations presently taking place.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Progress in the START and INF negotiations remains disappointingly slow because of Soviet intransigence. In the INF negotiations the Russians are refusing to negotiate about a bilaterally balanced solution. At the mutual and balanced force reductions talks, the East will not agree force levels or effective provisions for verification. In the negotiations in Geneva to ban chemical weapons some progress has been made, but important problems of verification remain.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but in connection with the INF talks in Geneva will he confirm that the Russians have made no constructive response whatever to President Reagan's zero option? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are millions on both sides of the iron curtain who yearn for the Russians to enter into serious negotiations aimed at dismantling their SS20s, which would lead to the West not having to deploy cruise missiles? Does he agree that that is the safest and most practical way ahead to encourage nuclear disarmament?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. We have offered the prospect of serious negotiations within the INF talks, and we are still awaiting a positive response of the kind that my hon. Friend would like.

Mr. Russell Johnston: What view does the Foreign Secretary take of the fact that Herr Genscher has again brought up the question of the informal walk in the woods agreement? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there is a possibility of advance on that basis?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One should hesitate before building any conclusions on what may or may not be reported about recent exchanges on that previous discussion. It is important to note that the visit to the Soviet Union by Chancellor Kohl, accompanied by Foreign Minister Genscher, has been an impressive opportunity to make plain the firmness of the West in its approach to disarmament and our determination to deploy the weapons as necessary and as agreed, but that that determination is accompanied by an equal determination to embark on disarmament negotiations if the Soviet Union is willing to move.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say when he expects the INF talks to resume? Are they open-ended, or will they automatically terminate, either with an agreement before Christmas or with the arrival of the first cruise missiles in Western Europe?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Without specific notice, I cannot give the date of the recommencement. The date has recently been changed, and unfortunately I do not have the date in my mind.

Mr. Canavan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should do his homework.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The scene is changing rapidly, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)

must be patient. I would rather give an accurate answer than a speculative one. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is that there is no reason to suppose that the INF negotiations will be interrupted by deployment on or after 15 November.

Mr. George Robertson: Does the Foreign Secretary think it significant that it was after the visit to Moscow that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher made the reported suggestion of reviving at Geneva the walk in the woods agreement? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think that it would be irresponsible if Western Governments went ahead with the immediate deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles when there is a possibility that an agreement might be reached at Geneva on the basis of the tentative agreement that was arrived at last year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should not jump to any conclusion of that nature as a result of reports on which he may now be drawing. The best prospect for headway on the INF negotiations will follow from the firm commitment of the West to deployment, as already announced. That will be proceeded with, and it is on that basis that we strongly support the goal which we put forward of the zero option.

Extra-terrestrial Bodies

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom is party to any international agreements concerning extra-terrestrial bodies.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): The United Kingdom is a party to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, often called, for short, the Outer Space Treaty 1967.

Mr. Foulkes: I hope that the question has not caused the Minister or any of his advisers any sleepless nights. On behalf of terrestrials, as well as extra-terrestrials, could the Minister, his right hon. and learned Friend, and the Government make representations to President Reagan against the extension of weapons to outer space, which threatens to destroy the whole of our civilisation, if not civilisations beyond?

Mr. Whitney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his question has caused no sleepless nights. I further assure him that the propositions in President Reagan's speech of 23 March, to which he refers, on defensive technologies are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty 1967.

Helsinki Review

Mr. Lawrence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the area of human rights at the Helsinki review discussions in Madrid.

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the review conference on the Helsinki final act in Madrid.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is provisional agreement among 34 of the 35 participants on the text of the concluding document. We hope that consensus may soon be reached so that the meeting may be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite the tremendous efforts of Ambassadors Wilberforce and Williams on behalf of the United Kingdom over the years in Madrid, the worst forms of offence against human rights have continued to be perpetrated by the Russians, who are now persecuting Yosef Begun, whose trial is next week, who have carried on their persecution of Shcharansky and others, and who have closed the door to the emigration of Jews to the state of Israel, which is a fundamental human right? To repeat a question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) yesterday, is this not just agreement for agreement's sake?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept my hon. and learned Friend's description of the outcome of the Madrid talks. However, I agree with him that the progress being made in that direction is certainly disappointing and much less than we should like. I agree, too, that actions of which we would all complain, and about which we feel as strongly as he does, are still taking place. However, continued pressure in this direction and the exposure of the misdeeds of the Soviet Union and other countries, as a result of the Helsinki process, have been facilitated. The negotiations at Madrid have enabled us to press forward with criticisms and advance the representations which my hon. and learned Friend wishes us to make on behalf of these people. In this process, which must proceed step by step, the Madrid agreement will be of some value.

Mr. Atkinson: Has not the gravest disappointment of Madrid been for those, who like Dr. Yuri Orlov, have been imprisoned for establishing Helsinki monitoring groups? Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that no agreement will be signed until ar amnesty has been granted to members of monitoring groups?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give such an undertaking, but I can say that my hon. Friend has raised legitimate points on behalf of monitoring groups, Mr. Shcharansky and others. They are points that we have continually pressed on the Soviet Union, both inside and outside the context of these negotiations, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. MacLennan: What arrangements have been agreed at Madrid for monitoring both at Helsinki and the agreement itself?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It proved impossible to obtain consensus on a Western proposal to ensure that all individuals could express their views on the respect shown by the Governments for the final act. However, there is a commitment in the concluding document to encourage genuine efforts to implement that act, which will afford at least some protection to the Helsinki monitoring groups.

Mr. Maples: While considering the question of human rights, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether he should advise the Government to sign protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which seeks to write into the convention the abolition of the death penalty? In view of the overwhelming majorities by which

certain motions were rejected in the House last week, that would seem to be an appropriate course of action for the Government to take.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is certainly a matter that I am prepared to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Chile

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the relations of the United Kingdom with Chile.

Mr. Whitney: We maintain normal diplomatic relations with Chile.

Mr. Lofthouse: What was the purpose of the recent visit to London of General Matthei and other representatives of the Chilean Government? Did any talks take place between Ministers or Government officials and the Chilean party?

Mr. Whitney: General Matthei visited London in March 1983. He met the chief of air staff, other Royal Air Force officers and Ministry of Defence officials to discuss professional air force matters and potential defence sales. He paid a courtesy call on my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Mr. Parry: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the Chilean junta that the Government are completely opposed to the repression of democracy and human rights? Will he support the demand for the release of more than 30 trade union leaders who are now in prison?

Mr. Whitney: The Government have never left the Chilean Government in any doubt about our concern at their poor human rights performance, of which the recent detention of Senor Valdes and his colleagues is a lamentable example. When my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) visited Chile in April as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he made the Government's concern clear to the Chilean Government and called on Cardinal Silva and the acting chairman of the Chilean commission on human rights.

Mr. Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the 10-year-old Pinochet regime is now in its last throes, as shown by recent events? Therefore, will the Government reassess their policies, military and otherwise?
Why did not the Government, as opposed, for example, to the German Government, make a direct protest to the Chilean Government about the arrest of the leader of a sister party to that Government, instead of leaving it solely to the French ambassador at Santiago, speaking on behalf of the EC? What precisely were the terms of that protest?

Mr. Whitney: Not being the possessor of a crystal ball, I cannot forecast the future of the present Chilean Government, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's ambassador in Santiago, in company with the other Community ambassadors, protested vigorously on 11 July to the Chilean Foreign Minister at the detention of Senor Valdes and the other Christian Democrat leaders. The Greek Government, in their present capacity as president of the Community, also expressed to the Chilean ambassador in Athens the concern of all 10 Community


members at the detentions and the repression of political freedom in Chile. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Senor Valdes was released from detention on 13 July.

Central America

Mr. James Lamond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the United States Government the situation in Central America.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Central America was one of the topics I discussed when I met Secretary of State Shultz in Washington on 14 July.

Mr. Lamond: Is there anyone in the Foreign Office who is aware that there is a deepening crisis in Central America which is being made worse by American naval manoeuvres in the area, increased involvement with regressive Governments there and now the suggestion that Dr. Henry Kissinger is to become involved? Will the Foreign Secretary take his courage in both hands and issue a word of caution to the President of the United States about that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to draw attention to the serious features arising from events and conditions in that area, and the fact that the United States Government have appointed a commission which includes Dr. Kissinger is just one measure of their concern for the seriousness of the situation. It must be remembered that, as they have said, they are seeking to secure, as are many other people, including the Contadora group, peace in that area, the restoration of stable social conditions, and, as much as anyone else, to diminish the flow of arms to that part of the world.

Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is on the Order Paper an early-day motion signed by 25 Labour Members criticising the Government on the ground that they invited to Britain this week ex-President Duarte of E1 Salvador, because he is said to be involved in violence and to be undemocratic? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, to the contrary, ex-President Duarte has suffered exile and torture because of his belief in democracy and that during his visit to Europe he was received by the Socialist Prime Minister of Spain and the leaders of three other EC countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those facts. Senor Duarte has indeed been received by several European leaders and criticism of him here comes ill from those who signed that early-day motion.

Israel-Lebanon Agreement

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any discussions with a view to achieving early implementation of the Israel-Lebanon agreement; and, if so, what assurances he has received that Syrian forces and Palestine Liberation Organisation terrorist groups will withdraw from the Lebanon at the same time as Israeli forces.

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has had discussions with the Saudi Arabian authorities to ask them to use their influence with the Syrians to withdraw their troops from sovereign Lebanese territory.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Israel-Lebanon agreement was a welcome step forward, and we are doing what we can in all our contacts to create the conditions in which it can be implemented. The Syrians and the PLO are well aware of our view that they should take this opportunity to withdraw their forces from Lebanon.

Mr. Thorne: As my right hon. and learned Friend rightly acknowledges the fact that responsibility for that sad state of affairs largely rests in the hands of the PLO and Syrian terrorists, will he use his endeavours to ensure that the United Nations Security Council introduces sanctions against Syria until such time as she makes it possible for the Israeli forces to withdraw?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We certainly intend to make plain to the Syrian Government, as we have already done, that the best way to bring about the withdrawal of Israeli forces is for them to agree to withdraw their forces from Lebanon. I should like to think rather longer about my hon. Friend's first point.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only way to a free and independent Lebanon is the complete withdrawal of all foreign troops, and that the way to achieve that is surely to use all the means at our disposal where we have influence, particularly with the Saudi Arabians? Will he try to do that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Certainly the way to the peaceful resolution of the problems in the Lebanon is the withdrawal of all forces from that country. It is right that we should use every means and influence at our disposal. That is what we are trying to do, but we should not overestimate our influence.

Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind the appalling massacres of Palestinians last year in Beirut, with Israeli connivance, will the Government, with our European allies, do everything in their power to ensure that the Palestinians in south Lebanon are given adequate protection in the next critical months?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's important point.

Mr. Mikardo: Does not the present civil war within the PLO make it impossible to draw that organisation into negotiations or even discussions about withdrawal, as we could not be sure that any member of the organisation to whom one talked was empowered to speak for the whole of the organisation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: When dealing with any organisation it is important to have an understanding of the authority, or lack of authority, of all those who seek to speak for it. The key feature is that the Palestinian people must play a full part in the negotiations affecting their future.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to meet representatives of the Falkland Islands Company to discuss Government policy on the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Whitney: Ministers and officials already discuss regularly a wide range of matters with those who have a significant interest in the Falkland Islands, including the Falkland Islands Company.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Government order an inquiry into reports that the Falkland Islands Company collaborated with occupying Argentine forces last year, to the extent that the company received £93,000 for supplying the Argentine forces and then had the brass neck to claim £2 million war damages from the British Government? Why should a capitalist outfit such as Coalite, with pre-tax profits of over £27 million, be allowed to make a killing out of an unnecessary war in which over 1,000 people lost their lives?

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman confuses at least three different issues. No one would argue with him about the horror of 1,000 lives being lost.
In point of legal fact, no legislative action had been taken to prevent the trading activities to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, the Falkland Islands Company was not acting illegally in supplying goods to the Argentine military authorities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Coalite. The profits of the Falkland Islands Company amounted to less than 1 per cent. of the group's profits. The company's compensation claim is being discussed and we are not yet ready to reveal details.

Mr. Canavan: The Government are giving it a big handout.

Cyprus

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus.

Mr. Whitney: My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that today is the ninth anniversary of the brutal invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish army? Is he further aware that successive Governments have shown little involvement in trying to resolve the tragedy of that invasion?
In view of the lack of progress in the inter-communal talks, will the Minister urge his right hon. and learned Friend to change his attitude and try to bring the two sides together in meaningful discussion, working for the reunification of Cyprus?

Mr. Whitney: Of course we regret the slow progress in the inter-communal talks. However, any separate initiative now might cut across the efforts of the United Nations. The Government are ready to give any help to the United Nations, and to the two communities involved, that they would all consider helpful.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Because of the oppression of the Turkish Cypriot minority since 1961, is i: any wonder that they have decided to go it alone and declare an independent state? Is there nothing that we can do to bring the two communities together on equal terms, rather than continue to treat the Turkish-Cypriots as a minority?

Mr. Whitney: The declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state would ruin the prospects of the inter-communal talks. We hope that that can be avoided and that progress with the talks can be made under United Nations negotiations.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister urge his right hon. and learned Friend, on this ninth anniversary, to give high

priority to fulfilling the Government's obligation, as a guarantor power, to the sovereign and territorial integrity of Cyprus? Will he seek the immediate withdrawal of the invading Turkish forces?

Mr. Whitney: The Government recognise their obligation in this difficult issue, but believe that the best way forward is through the inter-communal talks. We shall continue to support them while being alive to any other possible initiatives that may contribute to a settlement.

Mr. Rossi: Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom still enjoys considerable goodwill among both communities in Cyprus? Should we not be using that goodwill to help bring about a final and just solution in the interests of all the people of that unhappy island?

Mr. Whitney: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's point. We shall use our position in any area that might be profitable and productive. Currently, the intercommunal talks offer the best hope, although the whole House recognises that they are disappointingly slow.

Mr. George Robertson: Does not Britain have a major responsibility for Cyprus? We cannot continue to pass the buck to the stalemated inter-communal talks. Is it not time for a major initiative by the Government, possibly by arranging an early visit to Britain by President Kyprianou? Should we not urge that progress be made in the talks so that we are not left in the same stalemated position for another nine years?

Mr. Whitney: President Kyprianou is due to visit London on 26 July. No doubt this important issue will feature on the agenda of our talks with him. I can only repeat that there is a limit to the influence of any power, including the British Government with their strong historical links with Cyprus. We shall continue to exert all our efforts to get the inter-communal talks moving.

Argentina

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United Nations Organisation to request that they should exert further influence on Argentina to acknowledge the formal cessation of hostilities in the south Atlantic.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall continue to take suitable opportunities to remind members of the United Nations, including Argentina, that the threat or use of force to settle international disputes is forbidden under the United Nations charter.

Mr. Warren: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in this country are fed up with the way in which the Italians and the French are so eager to re-arm Argentina to the threshold of our defence capabilities in the Falklands? Is it not time for the United Nations, which is too eager to impose its sanctions on all who try to move towards war, to move with equal alacrity to help those who want peace? Should not the United Nations place some restraint on Israel, which is also seeking to re-arm Argentina?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to over-estimate the capacity of the United Nations to act in such a fashion in any of the cases referred to by my hon. Friend. It is certainly regrettable that those armaments are being delivered to Argentina.

Mr. Deakins: Why are the Government refusing to submit the dispute on sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to the International Court of Justice, in accordance with our international obligations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because there has been a long and abortive history for many years past.

Mr. Farr: As Argentina is almost financially bankrupt, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any future negotiations with or through the IMF on funds for Argentina are not proceeded with until that country recognises a ceasefire in the south Atlantic?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Under the articles of the IMF, it is not possible to attach political conditions to the relationship between the founder and member countries. It is possible to attach certain financial conditions related to the fulfilment of obligations to and by the fund. We cannot attach the conditions suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Anderson: Why cannot such conditions be imposed in international debt negotiations? Why did not the Government seek to do that on the last occasion? Why did they not impose conditions that any loans could not be used for future military purposes?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, it is not possible within the rules of the fund—it is designed as an organisation dealing with member states — for conditions such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned to be attached. If we sought to write into a financial organisation political and other conditions, or the power to make such conditions, that would not be fulfilling the nature of the organisation, which is a membership organisation with obligations to and from its members.

Arab States (Local Regulations and Restrictions)

Mr. Ernie Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the advice given by his Department to British business men and tourists visiting each of the Arab states concerning local regulations and religious restrictions.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The Department of Trade and Industry publishes advice in its booklets "Hints to Businessmen". The consular department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British consulates in Arab countries give advice in response to specific inquiries from tourists and other visitors from Britain.

Mr. Roberts: What representations has the Foreign Secretary made to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states about their refusal last year to allow British subjects to celebrate Christmas? What representations is he making about the rights of British citizens to celebrate Christmas this year?

Mr. Luce: We have no evidence that any Arab Government prevented anyone from celebrating Christmas last year. However, a specific case arose in Saudi Arabia last Christmas, which led to British expatriates being asked to leave Saudi Arabia a few months later. The Government have made strong representations to Saudi Arabia about that case.

Mr. Latham: Is it not incongruous that Arab states attach such great importance, and rightly so, to access to Islamic holy places in Jerusalem while being so reluctant to allow religious freedom to Christmas and Jews in their own countries?

Mr. Luce: The question is related to the advice that we give to British subjects about the conditions, traditions and customs of particular countries. When individuals go to particular countries it is important for them to take account of certain facts and it is those that we make available to the public.

Soviet Union

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards improving relations between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We have consistently made it clear to the Soviet leadership that a more constructive relationship is possible if the Soviet Union is prepared to show restraint and discontinue policies that increase international tension.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister and the Foreign Secretary agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), the previous Foreign Secretary, who said that dialogue with the Russians had become rather thin and urged, during the debate on the Queen's Speech, that there should be closer contacts between the two countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever disagreements we may have—often they are strong—with the Russian method of government, it is necessary and useful to have good Anglo-Soviet relations?

Mr. Rifkind: We agree that there is a need for constructive dialogue and it is for that reason that I was in Moscow several weeks ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Enlargement

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards further enlargement of the European Community after the accession of Spain and Portugal.

Mr. Rifkind: This is a hypothetical question. If there were further applications for European Community membership, the Community would need to consider them on their merits in accordance with article 237 of the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is it the non-hypothetical policy of Her Majesty's Government actively to encourage the enlargement of the Community, especially by the accession of other Scandinavian countries?

Mr. Rifkind: It is for any European state that shares our democratic and parliamentary traditions to apply, if it so wishes, for membership of the Community. Any application would then be considered in accordance with the terms of the treaty.

Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the exact nature of the Government's policy on the accession of Spain? Yesterday his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) that


Spain cannot enter the EC until the restrictions on the border between Spain and Gibraltar are lifted."—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 178.]
The Foreign Office has issued a statement today stating that the issue between Gibraltar and Britain is something quite separate from Spain's entry into tie EC. What is the Government's policy? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us who is speaking for the Government. Is it the Foreign Office or the Prime Minister?

Mr. Rifkind: It is the British Government's desire that Spain should become a member of the Community. If it wishes to do so, it must recognise that Gibraltar is part of the Community and that it would be inconceivable if Spain, as a member of the Community, did not allow movement across its frontiers with Gibraltar similar to that which it would provide for other member countries.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Before coming to any agreement on the accession of Spain and Portugal, will the Government ensure that British horticulture will not be ruined and that the transitional period will be sufficiently long to prevent such damage?

Mr. Rifkind: It is likely that Spain will require a long transitional period before becoming a full member of the Community. I can assure my hon. Friend that the considerations that she has raised will be taken into account during the negotiations.

Council of Ministers

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he will attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he will be attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers; what subjects will be discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: The next regular Foreign Affairs Council is due to take place on 19 and 20 September. We will not know what items will definitely be discussed until nearer the time, but it is possible that the agenda will include European Community-United States steel, Greenland's application to withdraw from the Community and the regional development fund regulation.
My right hon. and learned Friend will probably also attend the special Council due to take place on 30 August to continue the discussion of the future financing arrangements of the Community.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister seek to retrieve the unseemly situation that has led our Industry Ministers recently to stress that there will be no further contraction of Britain's steel industry until our European partners fulfil their obligations to contract? Is he aware that substantial redundancies and contractions were being arranged in Britain at the very time when the Ministers' supposedly robust comments were made? Is this position not completely preposterous, and does it not demonstrate that our partners must regard Britain as an extremely soft touch?

Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has made substantial reductions in the capacity of its steel industry. That has happened primarily because of our own

assessment of the industry's needs. Those reductions must be taken into account by other Community countries in the light of the Commission's further proposals.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend express concern and disgust at the present hold-up of investment in the British steel industry by the Common Market? Will he draw its attention to the fact that not so long ago it was turning a blind eye to expansion of the Italian steel industry while our industry, under its direction, was being cut to ribbons?

Mr. Rifkind: The bulk of the cuts that have been made in the steel industry in the Community have been made by the United Kingdom industry. Italy has increased its capacity over the past few years.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How can the British Government support a further contraction of the British steel industry when the Government, out of their own mouth, have admitted that the British steel industry has cut its capacity more than any of its competitors in Europe? How can the Government accept that there will be a reduction in the duty on wines, which come from countries outside the United Kingdom in the main, and an increase in the duty on beer, which is a great and traditional product of this country? I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that the Government will stand up for British traditions and British interests.

Mr. James Lamond: Drink British.

Mr. Rifkind: We are considering the implications of the recent judgment of the European Court and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's comments will be taker into account. The Commission has submitted proposals for small additional cuts in the steel industry to the British Government. We are considering our response to the proposals and we shall take into account the considerations raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that when he next attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers he will not agree to any increase in our VAT contributions to the EC budget?

Mr. Rifkind: During the Stuttgart summit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that any consideration of an increase in the own resources of the Community could be considered only if the Community were able to accept a firm guideline on expenditure and to consider a proposal for redistributing the burden of the expenditure of the Community among the member states. We have said that if these conditions are met we shall be prepared to hear the reasons why other Community countries feel that an increase in own resources would be desirable. We would then proceed to consider the matter on its merits.

Budget

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made towards finding a solution to the European Community budget problem.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to prevent any increase in the size of the European Community budget until satisfactory reforni of the common agricultural policy is agreed.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards reaching a long-term solution to the European Community budget problem.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress towards a resolution of budgetary problems was made at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 July.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the Prime Minister told the House on 23 June, the European Council at Stuttgart on 17 to 19 of June agreed that urgent negotiations would be started on the future financing of the Community and that the result of the negotiations would be submitted to the next European Council in Athens on 6 December. The first meeting of the special Council, which is to prepare the ground for decisions at Athens, took place in Brussels on 8 July. Agreement was reached at this meeting on the timetable for future meetings of the special Council and on procedural questions.
I attended the second of these Councils yesterday and will be saying a word about its outcome during the statement that I shall be making to the House on the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 July, immediately following this Question Time.

Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that there will be no further increase in Britain's contribution to the EC budget until such time as our EC partners are prepared to accept the admirable principles that he outlined in his statement yesterday?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about my statement. The purpose of making it was to impress the Government's propositions upon our colleagues.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that when the Prime Minister returned from Stuttgart she boasted that she was getting a rebate of £450 million? When will that sum be repaid and will it be conditional?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The effect of the agreement that was arrived at in Stuttgart was that provisons for the rebate would be written into the budget that is now under preparation. The money will be repayable—

Mr. Hamilton: When?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: —to this country on the same timetable as in previous years, but in Britain's financial year. There are no conditions attached to that. It has emerged clearly from what my right hon. Friend has said about Stuttgart that agreement on the refund to the United Kingdom was not conditional or dependent upon other agreements that were arrived at in Stuttgart.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the extension of regional development and energy policies in the Community, from which Britain would benefit disproportionately, could play a part in the long-term solution of the budget problem?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I would agree with my hon. Friend in following that approach. If we were to try to solve our budgetary problem by an expansion of the regional fund in order to secure the equivalent of the 750 million ecu that we are getting under

the Stuttgart agreement, we should have to enlarge the size of the regional fund until it was twice as large as the entire Community budget. That would not seem to be the most fruitful way of doing it. One of the objects of the arrangement that I was urging yesterday was to put the financing of the budget on a more rational basis, so that member States need not be so preoccupied with whether we do or do not get something out of a particular policy. We can address ourselves to the financing of the budget and then consider the policies on their merits.

Mr. Dykes: As there is an urgent need to create enthusiasm for the EC in this country, and as the budget rebate has been a spectacular success for Her Majesty's Government, is it not now possible to indulge in the best principles of compromise and give and take with the European Parliament and create a truly constructive dialogue for the non-inflationary expansion and modernisation of the budget?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate in my present capacity to try to analyse all the implications of a non-inflationary expansionary modernisation of the budget, but I certainly agree that it would be useful to endeavour to secure the most fruitful partnership that we can between the Commission, the Council, member states and the Parliament.

Mr. Rogers: Is the Secretary of State aware that an increase in taxation from 1 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. is likely to cost the British taxpayer about £3 million? What steps will he now take to ensure that we get a reasonable return, in view of the fact that the other countries are not likely to change their views on the common agricultural policy? How much is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to sell us down the river for?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I accept the arithmetic underlying the hon. Gentleman's question, but he is right to draw attention to the fact that an enlargement of own resources would involve an additional burden to the budgetary burden on the people of this country.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman increase VAT?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The reason why I believe that it is right to say that the argument against accepting the case for enlarging own resources is likely to be considered seriously is that an agreement to enlarge own resources involves the concurrence of the Council and of each Parliament of the member states. In place of that balance of relationships, the proposition that one cannot automatically accept the case for enlarging own resources must be taken seriously.

Mr. Body: Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to make it plain to his colleagues on the continent that VAT places a heavy burden on the consumer, the poor as well as the rich? Will it be his intention to oppose any increase in VAT?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: One can certainly understand the case that if VAT or any other tax increases beyond a certain point, it becomes more of a burden. The argument that we are considering in the European Community is not, in fact, whether that tax should be increased, but whether the tax revenue to be handed over as own resources should be calculated by reference to a notional increase in the tax.

Mr. Skinner: It is going up.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The real question is whether we allow an increase in own resources. We have placed the burden of proof firmly on those who seek to make that case.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the resources of the Community are drying up and that by October there will be a financial crisis if own resources are not increased? As the British net contribution this year is £1,140 million, which is about equal to the entire British aid programme to the Commonwealth and the countries of the underdeveloped world, when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come to the House to say what action he will take to ensure that Britain gets a fair deal in the Market?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is straightforward. The present arrangement for financing; the Community is leading to the position that the hon. Gentleman described. The resources available to the Community are running out. Any increase in those so-called own resources has to be made by shifting resources from somewhere else—from the taxpayer or the consumer. We are saying that that case must be proved. We also say that whatever arrangements are made for financing the Community in future, Britain should not bear an unduly large share of the cost. In pursuit of that case we have been successful, over the past four years, in securing a refund of two thirds of our potential maximum contribution. Over the past four years we have been successful in securing refunds of £2,500 million. That is an indication of the energy with which we conduct the case.

Community Development

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he intends submitting to the next meeting of the Council of Ministers with the objective of furthering community development; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall be amplifying the ideas that I introduced at the meeting of the special Council yesterday on a safety net arrangement that will ensure that no member state will have to bear an excessive budgetary burden, and for a financial framework governing the growth of agricultural expenditure.
We shall continue to argue for our ideas for the development of the Community in a number of areas, including the internal market for goods and services, energy strategy, regional and social policy, and for the acceleration of the negotiations for Spanish and Portuguese accession.

Mr. Hicks: As a significant proportion of the expenditure on the common agricultural fund is essentially social, so that it is in effect, a rural support fund, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider advocating the formal introduction of a rural fund to ensure the continued viability of rural areas through enhanced infrastructure and other forms of investment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of a sensible agricultural policy to the rural areas in this country. I am interested in his alternative proposal. The central feature is that there is a limit to the resources that can be found to finance programmes of any type, whether rural or urban.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge and recognise that if the Government persist in a system of unfair voting for the European Parliament they will not only deprive the people of this country of fair representation in the European Parliament, but will distort the political composition of that Parliament? When does he propose to end the anomaly of Britain being the only country in the European Parliament without a fair system of representation?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question does not arise out of question 68. That is a different question. I have no proposals to put before the House on that matter.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to develop the Community as a political force rather than just consider our budget problems and the problems of economic and industrial development in the Community? In his new portfolio as Foreign Secretary, will he bear in mind that one of the most important contributions that he could make would be to ensure that the Community began to take a further initiative in foreign affairs, particularly on the middle east?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend about the potential and importance of the Community's role in political co-operation in the middle east as elsewhere. One of the most important political questions for the Community at the moment is the resolution of the longstanding budgetary problem. For too many years now Foreign Ministers as well as Finance Ministers have had to devote too much time to the resolution of recurrent rows in that area. I make no apology for treating that, among other things, as an important political question for the Community.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain in a little more detail than he has hitherto precisely what proposals the Government have for furthering community development? The Government are saying that the proposals for the future of the Community must, more or less, be along the lines of the Government's policies in this country over the past four years. Is he suggesting that we should export Thatcherism to the whole of Europe? We have high unemployment because of Tory policies. Do the Government want even higher unemployment throughout the entire Community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is an absurd proposition. The point I am making is that, whether in the Community or in this country, wealth must be created before it can be redistributed or redirected. Whether in the Community or in this country, commonsense principles apply, of which the most important is that finance should determine expenditure and not expenditure determine finance.

European Parliament

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any invitation to address the European Parliament.

Mr. Rifkind: No.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be an opportunity, when such an invitation


manifests itself, as it no doubt will, to capture the imagination of European politicians and the European public with the real desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House to achieve progress in spheres such as support of European technology, closer co-operation in political, energy and social matters as well as in the promotion of policies for combating unemployment? Is he aware that these policies constantly run into difficulties when they are considered piecemeal? Does he agree therefore that there is an opportunity for an imaginative—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is quite long enough for a supplementary.

Mr. Rifkind: It is normal practice for a Foreign Minister to address the European Parliament only when his country holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers. I agree, however, that my hon. Friend's objectives are highly desirable.

Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of the record I feel that I should point out a serious and misleading statement that was made by the Minister when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order must be addressed to me, but I cannot rule on misleading statements said to have been made by the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to protect the House in relation to the formulation of Foreign and Commonwealth Question Time? Today we had no fewer than 63 non-EC questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which had to be answered in 35 minutes, whereas we had only 10 EC questions, for which 20 minutes was allotted: nine of the 10 EC questions were answered and only 14 of the non-EC ones were answered.
This has happened frequently. It means that the 50 or so hon. Members who tabled questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary relating to non-EC matters did

not have their questions reached. I was among them. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you might consider recommending either that EC Question Time is cut by half or that the full 20 minutes is allowed, but perhaps on each alternative day when the Minister answers.

Mr. Skinner: I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to the fact that question No. 75 is down in my name to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know when that right hon. and learned Gentleman answers in the House and I usually manage to table a question to him. The reason why it appears on the Order Paper in its present form is not because I wrote it in that fashion, but because of what occurred when it went to the Table Office.
I was hoping to be able to discuss the fact that France, Germany and Italy were sending arms to Argentina and that Britain was providing the money. That is called European co-operation. That was the basis of it. When I got to the Table Office the question was accepted. It appeared on the Order Paper, but then, because the Government are embarrassed because they are providing the money to enable Exocets to be purchased from France in the name—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I am talking about the transfer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has managed to put his supplementary question.
I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said. The supplementary questions and answers to the first series of questions on the Order Paper today were, in my judgment, rather too long, and therefore we did not do as well as we should have done. The allocation of time for Foreign and Commonwealth Questions is not a matter for me but for the Government, and that is where the hon. Gentleman should make his representations.

Foreign Affairs Council

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the foreign affairs council held in Brussels on 18 July at which I represented the United Kingdom and at which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was also present. I will also take this opportunity to comment on the special council which met on 19 July to discuss the future financing of the Community.
I shall deal first with the discussion about the decision of the United States Administration to impose import curbs on certain special steel products. Coming so soon after the Williamsburg commitment against protectionism, this decision has caused great dissatisfaction in the Community. I made that quite clear both to President Reagan and to Secretary of State Shultz during my visit to the United States last week.
The European Commission has already taken this up with the United States Administration on behalf of the Community, but there has been no sign of American willingness to reconsider or amend the decision. The Commission therefore proposed to seek consultation in the GATT and to raise the issue in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The council strongly supported the Commission's proposals and agreed to issue a statement of conclusions setting out the Community's position. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House.
The council made satisfactory progress towards agreeing its position on negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on a successor to the Lome convention, which are due to open in October. There will be further discussions on the, outstanding points of the Commission's negotiating mandate at the September meeting of the council.
The annual report of the Committee of Permanent Representatives on relations between the Community and the countries of EFTA was accepted by Ministers, who expressed their support for the strengthening of the relationship.
The council reviewed progress on Greenland's application to withdraw from the Community. Ministers agreed the need to make progress in the negotiations and in particular the desirability of an agreement which satisfactorily balanced the development of Greenland's fisheries with the proper needs of the Community.
In informal discussion of United Kingdom refunds in respect of 1982 and 1983, decisions on which are for the Budget Council which is meeting today and tomorrow, I underlined the need for full and correct implementation of what was agreed in October 1982 and at Stuttgart.
In the context of political co-operation, Ministers of the Ten also briefly discussed progress at the Madrid meeting of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the situation in central America and in Poland.
Finally, the Ministerial meeting with the Portuguese reviewed progress in Portugal's accession negotiations.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I took part in a meeting of the Special Council to discuss the future financing of the Community and other issues covered in the Stuttgart declaration. I

explained our views on a number of issues, particularly on a safety net scheme for limiting net contributions to the Community budget and on strict financial guidelines for controlling agricultural expenditure.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will tare right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why copies of his statement were not in our hands until 3.15? That did not give us time properly to examine it. But on the other hand, having read through it quickly, I can see that there is not much in it anyway, so there was not much to examine.
Was there any discussion about trying to create policies for the whole of the Community to get the EC working and unemployment down? One omission from the Secretary of State's statement—as has been the case in the past—is any indication from the Government that any effort is being made by the European countries to reflate the economy and get our people, in Britain and throughout Europe, back to work as quickly as possible. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain precisely what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are on that.
As for the United States—EC steel conflict, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is part of a wider trade conflict and that the protectionism of the common agricultural policy has fuelled it? Does he agree that the United Kingdom steel industry has been squeezed between the steel policies of the EC and the agricultural protectionism of the United States? When he discusses this with the GATT, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw attention to agricultural matters as well as to the problems of steel?
We have heard statement after statement from various Ministers about VAT and refunds to the United Kingdom. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say, as many other Conservative Ministers have said, that there is no intention to raise VAT in this country. That cannot be guaranteed, but will he guarantee that there will he no further increase in the VAT contributions to the Community budget or own resources, which is the only way in which it can be done at the moment?
If, as is quite likely, the European Assembly decides to block the budgetary proposals, what do the Government intend to do? The Assembly is flexing its muscles and it is clear that after the Athens summit it intends to say, "We want extra powers, we intend to get them and we will get rid of the Commission if we do not like what is being proposed." How would the Government respond to that?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that the Government will tell the House in detail what is happening in the Community as early as possible, so that we can have a real discussion about the proposals and the House can make its views clear?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I shall certainly see that the House is kept informed in this fashion and other customary ways of what is taking place between the Government and the other countries of the Community.
On the procedural point, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman did not have the document, which he was certainly entitled to. I believe that it left my office at 2 o'clock. I shall try to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the intentions of the Parliament. The Parliament adopted similar positions at


different stages of the procedure last year. In answer to a question in the House on 17 December, I said that we should take action to protect our position if it became necessary in the light of what the Parliament was then threatening to do. In the event, the Parliament did not do what it had threatened to do. I think that I ought to wait before answering a hypothetical question.
The creation of sanctions in the United States against European speciality steels is one manifestation of a tendency towards protectionism which ought to be deplored on both sides of the Atlantic. It does not arise out of the agricultural policy but is a separate and distinct point. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the reasons for wanting to reform the common agricultural policy and to curb agricultural subsidisation everywhere is that it gives rise to undue protectionist tendencies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the VAT own resources measurement. If the Community can satisfy the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister, we are prepared to see whether a case can be made out for an enlargement of own resources. As I have already said today, a case that we can accept has not yet been made. That point is linked with the hon. Gentleman's first question. He asked whether we had taken action to get the Community back to work and reduce unemployment. He asked why we had not achieved any reflation. The answer is that all the member states of the Community recognise that reflation is the wrong method of combating unemployment. That question therefore does not arise in the Community.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Was there any discussion about the enlargement of the Community? Is it still the view of the Council of Ministers that enlargement cannot take place until the common agricultural policy has been reorganised?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Enlargement was one of the propositions agreed upon at Stuttgart. It was in that context that we met the Portuguese Ministers at the Council meeting yesterday to review progress on their accession negotiations. The Stuttgart agenda includes getting on with the process of enlargement, the reform of the common agricultural policy and the improvement of the budgetary procedure. Those matters are all going ahead at the same time.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that even if a reform of the common agricultural policy and an equitable budgetary solution are achieved, there will still be an urgent need to increase the own resources element in the Community budget if we are ever to achieve anything in the regional or social field? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that he will not oppose such an increase, given that he achieves agreement on the CAP and the budget?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even if agreement is reached on reform of the agricultural policy and a fairer budgetary procedure, it does not follow that own resources should be increased. The burden of showing that the Community needs and should have an increase in own resources would still rest upon those who seek it. It would be a transfer of resources through Community institutions, for which the

case has not, on the face of it, been made. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views. We are prepared to listen to those who argue the case and to consider it on its merits.

Mr. David Howell: There will be a warm welcome for the bold and imaginative-sounding speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday, in which he opened up new possibilities for the reform of the common agricultural policy. Does he envisage that that reform will involve new legislation in national Parliaments, or amendment to the treaty of Rome? Beyond the idea of a ceiling on the CAP, does he foresee the development of new support systems for agriculture in the separate countries?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are national agricultural programmes, which differ in various respects, but my right hon. Friend should hesitate be believe that it is necessarily right to move from one form of subsidisation to another, or indeed to place one on top of another. We have to keep a balanced view.
It is still a matter of consideration whether my objective of giving the force of law to the guidelines which would limit the rate of growth of agricultural expenditure should be achieved by treaty, regulation or other Community legislation.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I was present this week at a meeting attended by Viscount Davignon? Viscount Davignon produced figures showing that the British steel industry had made twice the sacrifice in terms of tonnage that the German steel industry had made, despite the fact that the Germans produce more. He also issued a press statement saying that further sacrifices would have to be made. Who is to be sacrificed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Like other steel industries, the British steel industry has been required to make formidable sacrifices in the face of pressures in the world steel market in recent years. It is true that a larger proportion of those who work in the British steel industry have lost their jobs in the past four years than in most other steel industries. Sadly, that is because our industry remained uncompetitive for much longer than the industry of any other country. It is also due to the fact that in the early years of the previous Labour Government, for example, our steel industry lost a large share even of our domestic market, because of industrial action in our own steel industry. All those things have contributed to the fact that, sadly, there has been a greater loss of jobs in our steel industry than there need have been. Our industry is now more competitive than that of any other country in Europe, and should be better placed to face the future.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As the cost of the CAP in the Community, as presently sized, is the principal budgetary problem—my right hon. and learned Friend has made proposals for its reform—and as it is the Government's policy to agree to the accession of Portugal and Spain, which has a three-year agricultural development policy, have Ministers considered the economic effect on the CAP of the admission of Spain, and to a lesser extent Portugal, and what will the cost be of buying off their products to stop them ruining British agriculture?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is because of the possible implications of accession by those Iwo countries that negotiations are still not completed. A transitional period will certainly be necessary. Account mast also be taken of the political advantage to the prospects for democracy in Europe of Spain and Portugal's accession to the Community. It is worth recording that, if the CAP were done away with and replaced by a deficiency payments system in this country, the cost would be formidable—probably about £2 billion.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day before us and an imporant debate. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing in their places, but I would ask them to keep their supplementary questions brief.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Ministers must have had evidence before them oi' increasing covert assistance being given by the American authorities to the rebels fighting against the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua, and the United States of America is now making a show of strength that could lead to a naval blockade. At what point will European Ministers distance themselves from the United States' policy in central America, take the Americans aside, and tell them what only best friends can say—that a continuation of their current policies can lead only to a situation such as that which existed in Vietnam, which is not in the interests of the Western Alliance?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If Ministers consider the question of central America further, they will certainly bear in mind the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman, but they will also remember that the number of military advisers deployed by Cuba in the three key countries of central America is now estimated to exceed by tenfold those from the United States of America. They will also recognise that there is clear evidence of a Soviet-Cuban-Nicaraguan link, bringing arms and disruption to that area. Although we want to promote policies that will lead to pacification of the area, we take a balanced view of that responsibility.

Mr. Nigel Forman: If my right hon. and learned Friend's idea for a new budgetary safety net were introduced into Community finances, which member states would pay more, and which less?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend can analyse and answer the question for himself—[Laughter.] I do my hon. Friend the credit of believing that he understands the question as he poses it. Those states that are below the Community average — the poorest states — would not expect to be net contributors at all. On the other hand, those that are significantly above the Community average —of the six richest states in the Community, five are net beneficiaries under the system—could expect their budget contributions to increase. In other words, the system would be designed to place the burden more fairly, having regard to the relative prosperity of the member states.

Mr. James Lamond: Every time an Opposition Member asks for a little protection for any of our industries he is given a stern lecture about retaliation from the Minister responsible, so can we take it that America's steps to protect its steel

industry have made that country quake in its shoes, because we and other EC countries will strike back if the Americans do not take heed of what we have told them?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no doubt that one of the factors that is likely to persuade a country, including the United States of America, to reconsider the wisdom of introducing such measures is the prospect of our claiming our entitlement under GATT, first in the form of compensation and then, if that is not met, or is unsatisfactory, by way of retaliation. Sadly, when trade protectionism breaks out, that is the way that it is brought to an end. Those factors will be important to American considerations.

Mr. Tony Marlow: In the event of an increase in own resources, how would ratification be put through the House? Would it be primary legislation or something else? Will my right hon. and learned Friend his European colleagues that a majority in the House believe that we should, and can, secure a fair budget contributions without having to go for an increase in own resources, and that there is also a majority in the House against an increase in own resources for the EC, because it would mean, first, more European expenditure and more public expenditure; secondly, more expenditure which would he controlled by Europe, and it has yet to prove that it can control it efficiently; and thirdly, more policies which would be controlled by Europe, which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask three supplementary questions.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall answer one or two of my hon. Friend's questions. Legislation would be necessary for own resources to be increased, in every Parliament of every member state. It is a fact—as I well understand from what my hon. Friend has said—that many hon. Members would regard an increase in own resources as unwelcome. That gives me no doubt that we should place the burden of proving the case for an increase upon those who seek to make it.

Mr. Derek Foster: The Foreign Secretary is rightly concerned about the growth of protectionism, but is it not largely the result of pursuing the sort of economic policies that he advocated throughout Europe? Is not the only sure way of removing the threat of protectionism to have a co-ordinated expansion through Europe'? Why is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman pursuing such policies with our European partners?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That would be inconsistent with the convictions of this Government and with the convictions and aspirations of all our European partners.

Mr. David Crouch: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that, as members of a member state Parliament, we have no influence on the agendas drawn up for the Council of Ministers in the EC, but I hope that we still have some influence on the Government. Will he bear in mind the fact that, although we recognise the value of the EC looking outwards towards the central American problem and the Madrid conference, there is an urgent need for him to use his initiative as quickly as possible to bring the middle east question to the fore in the Council of Ministers, before it is too late?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That was of course the subject of discussion and conclusions at the Stuttgart conference. We


shall regularly turn our attention to that matter. I certainly share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the middle east, and, within the limits of our capacity and power, we shall continue to focus attention on it.

Mr. Robert Parry: Was the question of the continued detention of leaders of the Turkish Peace Association and DISK discussed? Will the Government support them and call for their early release?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That was not discussed.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Richard Body: When the interests of the ACP countries were discussed, did my right hon. and learned Friend raise with his colleagues the subject of the great hardship caused to ACP sugar countries? They have to gain the foreign exchange that they need by exporting half their sugar on to the world market, at the same time as the EC is dumping between one quarter and one fifth of its supply on the world market, causing the price to fall below the cost of production in every country in the world.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that result of the way in which agricultural policies interact on each other.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that in no circumstances will there be an increase in VAT or an increase in the amount of VAT money paid to the Common Market? Is not the truth of the matter that, after 10 years and £3,800 million of British taxpayers' money in net contributions, this autumn this much-vaunted Common Market, with its talk about partners and colleagues, will reach the point of bankruptcy and will have to be bailed out with some of the others that are swilling around the world?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can say nothing to add enchantment to the hon. Gentleman's jaundiced view of almost everything he looks on.

Mr. Heffer: I return to the question raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) about the future of financing the so-called safety net. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us a little more about how much support he is receiving from other EC countries? Is he receiving any support, especially, from the French in view of the statement by the French Foreign Minister which was reported in the press?
If the situation in central America worsens, will there be further discussions? What sort of representation is likely to be made to America by the EC Governments, especially Britain? Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that any argument about Nicaragua's link with Cuba and so on is irrelevant, because if war develops in central America we could be faced with a dangerous global problem? Are the Government just coming forward with the bland statement that we have heard or will they be making some representation to the Americans to hold off and begin to act reasonably and intelligently in central America?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The European Ministers are concerned with the prospects in central America, but it would not be wise to take so narrow a view as the hon. Gentleman takes of the sources of the problems of that area.
There is increasing understanding of and support for the case that Britain is making for a safety net. If the Community is to manage its resources sensibly, it needs a different way of handling its budget. It needs a fairer budgetary mechanism. A budget along the lines that we have been describing is called for. A number of other member states are beginning to look with interest on our proposal.

Mentally Handicapped Persons

Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
conditions in hospitals for the mentally handicapped.
The revelation today of the reports by the development team for the mentally handicapped shows that thousands of mentally handicapped people in Britain are suffering from appalling conditions. This matter is specific. This morning The Guardian revealed extracts from 18 reports, 17 of which have been kept secret by the Government. The reports deal with no fewer than 50 hospitals and 30 hostels. People in many of these institutions are suffering because of an incredible shortage of care and bad conditions.
This matter is important because we are dealing with people who cannot look after themselves. They are in public institutions and, therefore, are the responsibility of the public, Parliament and the Government. If anything is wrong, we should deal with it.
According to the reports, a great deal is wrong. Many mentally handicapped are in grossly overcrowded hospitals and institutions. Some are nor given the dignity of reasonable toilet accommodation. Some of the hospitals and institutions are grossly understaffed, though great tributes have been paid to the nurses. Some institutions are colossal fire risks. Some mentally handicapped people are in grim, stinking institutions too ancient to accomodate anyone throughout his life.
This matter is urgent, and if the House of Commons does not regard that kind of national scandal as a matter of urgency, no one will. Unless we take action today, the matter will simply drift and be repeated ad nauseum. It is urgent also because the Government continue to make false promises, give bromides and utter smooth words, but we receive no action or cash from the Government.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will see your way clear to granting this application. If you do it will show the House and the public that you regard the incarceration of these thousands of mentally handicapped people as an abomination. If you do not — and I recognise your difficulties—the Government must be warned that the scandal must be tackled, because we shall not tolerate thousands of mentally handicapped people being treated in this shocking, atrocious and uncivilised manner.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the revelations in The Guardian today regarding conditions in some hospitals for the mentally handicapped.
As the right hon. Member knows, I have considerable sympathy with what he has said, because I have an interest in the matter. Nevertheless, I have to decide whether what he has said should have precedence over the business for today.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 10 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful thought to the right hon. Member's representations, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED

VIDEO RECORDINGS

Mr. Graham Bright, supported by Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mr. Donald Anderson, and Mr. David Madell, presented a Bill to make provision for regulating the distributior, of video recordings; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Robert N. Wareing, supported by Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. John Hume, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, and Mr. David Penhaligon, presented a Bill to make further provision for, and to amend the law relating to disabled persons; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 November and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

SOCIAL SECURITY (AGE OF RETIREMENT)

Sir David Price, supported by Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Renee Short, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Robert McCrindle, and Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson, presented a Bill to make provision for flexible and equal ages of retirement; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 November and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Alexander Eadie, supported by Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Dr. Gavin Strang, Mr. John Smith, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Gordon Brown, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Alexander Pollock, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr. Donald Stewart, and Mr. Russell Johnston, presented a Bill to make new provision for Scotland with respect to the extinction of obligations to make contributions between wrongdoers; to amend the law relating to the time-limits for bringing actions which consist of or include a claim of damages in respect of personal injuries or a person's death; to make provision relating to the application of rules of law of a country other than Scotland in respect of the extinction of obligations or the limitation of time within which proceedings may be brought to enforce obligations; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 December and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

SEX EQUALITY

Ms. Jo Richardson, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Dame Judith Hart, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mrs. M. Beckett, Mr. Frank Dobson, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Renee Short, Mr. Doug Hoyle and Miss Joan Maynard presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to sex discrimination, equal pay and the age of retirement; and to consolidate with amendments the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 December and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

HOUSE BUYERS

Mr. Austin Mitchell presented a Bill to extend competition and to protect consumers in relation to the provision of services in connection with the transfer of ownership of real property in England and Wales by amending section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974, by making provision for the licensing of conveyancers, by making fresh provision for and in connection with the keeping of local land charges and the registration of matters therein, for amending and clarifying the law concerning the liability of surveyors who provide services in connection with the transfer of real property; and for purposes connected therewith; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

NORTHERN IRELAND ACT 1982 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Ken Maginnis, supported by Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Harold McCusker, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Mr. James Nicholson, Mr. John David Taylor, and Mr. A. Cecil Walker presented a Bill to facilitate the resumption of legislative and executive functions by the Northern Ireland Assembly and by persons responsible to it, by amending the Northern Ireland Act 1982; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 December and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

JURIES (DISQUALIFICATION)

Mr. John Watson, supported by Mr. Neil Thorne, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. John Wheeler, and Mr. Stephen Dorrell presented a Bill to make further provision for disqualification for jury service on criminal grounds; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 December and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

TRADE MARKS ACT 1938 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Stephen Dorrell, supported by Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, Mr. Nicholas Lyell, Mr. Barry Sheerman and Mr. John Watson presented a Bill to amend the Trade Marks Act 1938 to afford registration for service marks; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

CARAVAN AND TENT SITES

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles presented a Bill to make provision as to the licensing and control of caravan and tent sites; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 November and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

LNIMIGRATION OFFENCES (AMENDMENT)

Dr. John G. Blackburn presented a Bill to amend section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 in respect of offences under subsection (1)(b)(i) of that section; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 November and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

PARTNERSHIP IN YOUTH SERVICE

Sir Patrick Wall presented a Bill to give a statutory basis for youth work and consultation between local education authorities and voluntary youth organisations; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

CHILD ABDUCTION

Mr. Timothy Wood, supported by Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Bowen Wells, and Mr. Peter Lloyd, presented a Bill to amend the criminal law relating to the abduction of children; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Edward Leigh presented a Bill to amend section 2(3) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 so far as it relates to provisions for limiting the number of directors of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation who may be appointed in addition to those officially nominated and provisions for restricting the dividends on the Corporation's share capital; and to enable grants under section 64 of the Agriculture Act 1967 towards fulfilling guarantees of bank loans to be made in relation to a wider range of co-operative marketing businesses; and to extend the powers of obtaining information conferred by subsection (1) of section 1 of the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979 and to repeal subsection (5) of that section: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT)

Sir Ian Gilmour presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 in relation to the conduct and advertisement of licensed betting offices and to make provision for the alteration of the fees payable under paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

CYCLE TRACKS

Mr. Cecil Franks presented a Bill to amend the definition of "cycle track" in the Highways Act 1980 and to make further provision in relation to cycle tracks within the meaning of that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Secor d time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bit 29.]

ABUSE OF Toxic SUBSTANCES

Mr. Neville Trotter, supported by Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Tony Durant, presented a Bill to provide for the temporary detention of persons found in public places under the influence of toxic substances and for the welfare of juveniles there found inhaling such substances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

ANATOMY

Mr. John McWilliam presented a Bill to make provision about the use of bodies of deceased persons, and parts of such bodies, for anatomical examination and about the custody and disposal of bodies of deceased persons, and parts of such bodies, authorised to be used for anatomical examination; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 December and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ELECTORS ON HOLIDAY)

Mr. Tony Durant, supported by Mr, John Heddle, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. David Knox, Sir David Price, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Neville Trotter and Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to enable electors who are away on holiday at the time of a Parliamentary election to vote by post or by proxy: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION)

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, supported by Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Michael Knowles, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mr. Bryan Gould presented a Bill to amend Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1972: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 December and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

Orders of the Day — Defence Estimates

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [19 July]:
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983, contained in Cmnd. 8951.—[Mr.Heseltine.]

Which amendment was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983 (Cmnd. 8951) do not provide the United Kingdom with a viable defence against aggression; regrets the Government's failure to take any initiative to stop the escalation of the nuclear arms race and, as a first step, to support a nuclear freeze; notes that the Government plans would require the United Kingdom, which already spends more on the defence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation both in terms of gross national product and per head of the population than arty other member of the Alliance, to increase that spending still further; and therefore calls upon the Government to work within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for a strong non-nuclear defence policy and, in particular, to cease its reliance upon Trident and the deployment of Cruise missiles within the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1983–84

Question,
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,003,830,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1984 for expenditure on Defence and civil Services, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 27.

put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Barney Hayhoe and Mr. John Moore.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND

Mr. John Moore accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1984 and 1985; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Sex Discrimination

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): I beg to move,
That the draft Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
The debate is on the draft regulations to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970. The regulations arise from a need to amend the Act to conform to our European obligations. To do this in a way that is sensible and fair to everyone requires careful balances to be struck, raising complex matters of law and procedure. I apologise if I have to lead the House into matters which are complicated and which may seem to certain hon. Members on first consideration to be unwelcome. I apologise also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that on the first occasion on which I am speaking from the Dispatch Box in your presence I might have to deviate from the injunction for brevity of which you almost constantly remind us. However, there are certain legalistic passages which I might have to deal with at 78 rpm instead of 33. I am sure that the House will understand.
At first sight, the regulations consist of some simple propositions. The Equal Pay Act allows a woman to claim equal pay with a man, or a man with a woman—I do not propose to repeat that disclaimer on every occasion on which it might arise and in all comparative contexts henceforth a man can also mean a woman and a woman can also mean a man— if she is doing the same or broadly similar work, or if her job and his have been rated equal through job evaluation in effort, skill and decision. However, if a woman is doing different work from a comparable man, or if the jobs are not covered by a job evaluation study, the woman has at present no right to make a claim for equal pay. This is the gap, identified by the European Court, which we are closing. We are providing for those women to make claims to industrial tribunals, which will be helped by newly appointed experts who will furnish independent reports on whether the jobs compared are in fact of equal value.
It might be helpful to hon. Members if I summarise the history and background of this amendment. The House will recall the Equal Pay Act 1970—a most progressive measure. Five years later, in 1975, there was promulgated a European Community directive on the principle, and a further four years later, in 1979, the European Community Commission started infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom on the ground that the Equal Pay Act did not provide for equal pay for men and women for work to which equal value was attributed unless that work had already been rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme.
I note that some of my hon. Friends are getting slightly restive already—

Ms Clare Short: Speed it up a hit.

Mr. Clark: The speedy bit comes later. The European Court of Justice at Luxembourg gave judgment on 6 July 1982 to the effect that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its treaty obligations because United Kingdom legislation did not contain measures to enable employees, where no system of job classification existed, to obtain

equal pay for equal work for men and women. We are therefore required to amend the 1970 Act to comply with the court's judgment.
The Government accept the principle of equal pay for men and women and are committed to the full implementation of the European Community directive. We accept the need to amend the Equal Pay Act so as to close the small gap between the directive and the Act found by the European Court.
The European Communities Act 1972 provides a means to do this swiftly and efficiently by regulations, the draft of which we are discussing tonight.
We circulated draft regulations for comment in February. In drawing up that draft, we sought to retain the existing structure of the Equal Pay Act and machinery for deciding cases while making provision for the assessment of the value of work where no job evaluation had been undertaken, thereby bringing the Equal Pay Act into full compliance with the European Equal Pay directive as required by the court judgment.
The draft that we circulated in February provided, as does this one, that a woman is entitled to equal pay with a man in the same employment not only in the circumstances laid down in the current Act—where she is employed on work which is "like" or already "rated as equivalent" under a study—but also where her work is of equal value to a man's in terms of the demands made on her.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands, as I do, that we joined the European Community so that we could trade with our partners in the European Community. Why do we have this nonsense tonight? What have the regulations to do with trading? Why must we put up with this rubbish?

Mr. Clark: I do not think that my hon. Friend has fully comprehended the scope of our commitment to the European Community, which is set out in the treaty of Rome, and on which subject we do from time to time have the benefit of his views. I hope that if he should catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will hear those in extended form later.
Where a claim for equal pay arises under the new equal value provision, the draft regulations provide for the industrial tribunal to commission a report from an independent expert on whether the jobs are of equal value. The experts are to be appointed by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, to which I shall henceforth refer as ACAS.
Three specific areas in the February draft were criticised, and as a result we have made changes. The criticisms came from the Equal Opportunities Commission, to which I shall continue to refer as the Equal Opportunities Commission and not as the EOC.

Mr. Michael Martin: Get on with it.

Mr. Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to abbreviate the text or to speak more rapidly?
First, in the February draft the burden of proving sex discrimination in pay was placed on the woman. We did this because we were anxious to emphasise that a claim should be brought for equal pay for work of equal value only if sex discrimination was involved. On reflection, however, we felt this was unnecessary and what was


needed instead was a provision for employers to be able to argue in appropriate cases that sex discrimination was not involved. I shall explain later precisely what provision we have made for this.
The second area in which there was criticism of the February draft was a provision that people already covered by a job evaluation scheme could not bring a case under the new equal value provision. We introduced this limitation because the European Court judgment did not suggest that we needed to enable people whose job had already been evaluated to make a claim. However, representations were made to us by the Equal Opportunities Commission and others that the exclusion of people whose jobs have been evaluated would be contrary to the European equal pay directive.
We appreciate that the fact of creating a new provision to claim equal pay for work of equal value may highlight the difficult position of people whose jobs have been evaluated but who feel that there may have been sex discrimination—particularly indirect sex discrimination — in the evaluation itself. With that in mind, we decided on this point alone to go further than the European Court judgment required and provide that employees whose jobs had already been evaluated might have a claim considered under the new provision on the ground of sex discrimination in the original job evaluation study. Regulation 3(1) of the draft regulations gives effect to that.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would it be possible for my hon. Friend to take time off from dealing with these regulations to take a rapid reading course?

Mr. Clark: I am surprised at my hon. Friend's intervention. I feel that it is desirable that the House should be able to digest what is an exceedingly complex matter.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Certainly, but a little faster, please.

Mr. Clark: I know that my hon. Friend has a capacity to absorb data at a speed greater than some other hon. Members, but in the general interest of the House I will, for the time being, retain my existing pace.

Ms Clare Short: Does the hon. Gentleman believe in what he is saying? If not, is he not demeaning the office of a Minister of the Crown? Does he feel it right that he should stand at the Dispatch Box acting the part, just reading out words? He should either mean what he says or resign.

Mr. Clark: I applaud the hon. Lady's sentiments. When she has been here longer she will appreciate that a certain separation between expressed and implied beliefs is endemic among those who hold office.

Ms Short: Disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order.

Mr. Clark: I regret that the atmosphere should have been sullied in this way.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We have heard the hon. Gentleman speak from below the Gangway on many occasions. If he feels that it was worth while taking ministerial office, he should put the

Government's view that they, and he, believe in equal pay, and if he believes in equal pay, he should speak about it with enthusiasm and not in the manner in which he is speaking tonight.

Ms Short: If not, resign.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we might now return to the regulations.

Mr. Clark: Plainly, an assessment of enthusiasm is a completely subjective matter.
Representations have been made that any delay in implementation must be shown to be reasonably necessary to comply with European law; and in view of the fact that the administrative arrangements can be made within six months, we have decided to advance the date of implementation to 1 January 1984.
I now summarise the provisions of the draft regulations as laid before the House on 6 July, and inevitably I shall have to go into some technical, legal language, and I hope that the House will bear with me. In deference to the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) I shall accelerate my pace of delivery for this passage.
The draft contains regulations which provide that a woman is entitled to equal pay with a man in the same employment—or a man with a woman—where her work is of equal value to a man's in terms of the demands made on her, for instance, under such headings as effort, skill and decision—regulation 2(1). Where a claim for equal pay is to be determined under the new equal value provision, a tribunal will be able to dismiss an application if it is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for determining that the jobs are of equal value—regulation 3(1).

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister pause and explain the meaning of that last paragraph, because some of us who are skilled in understanding these provisions find it impossible to understand that one? Instead of racing through it, will he pause long enough to say what he believes it means, as presumably he is inviting the House to accept it? Will he remember that he is dealing with a matter which some of us regard with great concern?

Mr. Clark: I welcome so early a revelation of the fact that when one tries to please an hon. Friend one immediately offends an Opposition Member. I had hoped to disarm criticism on the Government Benches, but I find that I have aroused it on the Opposition Benches. I shall settle for a median rate of delivery between the two extremes.
If the tribunal is satisfied that there are no such grounds, it will dismiss the application.

Mr. Janner: What does it mean?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Janner: Honourable and learned.

Mr. Clark: The hon. and learned Gentleman corrects me, using the very adjective that I was about to choose to suggest that his mastery of such language doubtless exceeds my own and that in the fullness of time he will form his own Government.
The draft regulations explicitly provide that if jobs are already covered by a job evaluation scheme and there is


no evidence that that scheme is itself sexually discriminatory, there are no reasonable grounds for the tribunal to let the claim go forward.

Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have read in the newspapers that in the House one is not allowed to accuse another hon. Member of not being sober. However, I seriously put it to you that the Minister is incapable. [HoN. MEMBERS Withdraw."] It is disrespectful to the House and to the office that he holds for the hon. Gentleman to come here—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady ought not to make allegations of that kind. She should withdraw.

Ms. Short: I shall not withdraw.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should withdraw the allegation.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Ms. Short: No. I am speaking the truth.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should withdraw the allegation.

Mr. Michael Brown: Name her.

Ms. Short: I should be grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean what I say, but I do not understand the rules of the House. How I am allowed to tell the House that I mean it, without being penalised for saying it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand how the hon. Lady feels. She has not been long in the House. However, she really ought to withdraw that allegation. It is not permitted to accuse an hon. Member in that way.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Ms. Short: rose—

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not permissible for an hon. Member to ask you a question? As I understand it, the hon. Lady did not make an allegation but suggested to you that you should give—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Lady time to consider, and I ask her to withdraw the allegation.

Ms. Short: If I am allowed to withdraw when the House understands that I meant what I said, I withdraw.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall accept that as a withdrawal. We should now continue with the debate.

Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for any right hon. or hon. Member to address the House if he were drunk?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. I think that we should continue with the debate.

Mr. Clark: The regulations expressly provide that there shall be taken to be no reasonable grounds for determining that the work of a woman is of equal value if her work has already been given a different value to that

of her male comparator on a job evaluation study and there are no reasonable grounds for detenning that the evaluation contained in the study was made on a system that discrimates on grounds of sex.
The draft regulations provide, in regulation 2(2), that a material factor which is not the difference of sex must, in the case of work which is like or already rates as equivalent, be a material difference between the woman's case and the man's. This is a test applied in the current Equal Pay Act. However, in the case of work which it is claimed is of equal value in terms of the demand made on the employees, the regulations provide that the material factor may be, but need not be, such a material difference.
The purpose of this provision is to enable unequal pay to be justified in situations where the work is of equal value but there is no sex discrimination. We consider that a wider test is required in equal value cases than under the current Act, because "material difference" under current case law has been interpreted as meaning factors personal to the employee concerned, and in these new equal value cases, where the scope for comparison will be much wider than under the current Act, we consider that the scope of the employer's defence needs to be widened accordingly.
I shall come back to that point a little later in my speech.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In widening the scope of the defence, is the Minister satisfied that he is not undermining the purpose of this legislation, which is intended to bring the law into conformity with a judgment of the European Court?

Mr. Clark: The decision to widen the scope was taken after consultation. I shall return to that point shortly, but I think that I am satisfied in that regard.
To resume my summary of the regulations, if the tribunal is satisfied at this early stage that the employer has shown that the variation in pay is due to a material factor other than sex, it will dismiss the case. Otherwise, the tribunal will commission a report from an independent expert on whether the two jobs in question are of equal value. The independent expert will be drawn from a list of people designated by ACAS. The experts will have experience of industrial relations and the evaluation of jobs, though they will not necessarily be expected to use formal job evaluation in considering the value of the two jobs in question.
The expert will report to the tribunal on the value of the jobs and the tribunal will make a decision on equal value, taking such account of the expert's report as it considers appropriate. If the tribunal decides that the jobs are of equal value, and unless at this stage the employer can show that the variation is due to a material factor other than sex, the tribunal will award equal pay.
In addition to the draft regulations whose contents I have just been describing, provision needs to be made in procedure regulations for rules governing the operation of the independent expert and of these cases generally.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Clark: I shall give way, but because of various interruptions this speech is taking an inordinately long time to make, even by the standards of a full debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give way indefinitely.

Mr. Marlow: I shall be as brief as my hon. Friend has been in giving way. He says that equal pay will be


awarded. I assume that that means that the man or woman in question will receive more pay. Does that not mean that the product or service that she is providing is likely to become more expensive? If the product or service becomes more expensive, is there not a possibility that the company for which she works will go bankrupt and that she will lose her employment? Is not my hon. Friend a Minister in the Department of Employment, and is it not his job to secure maximum employment opportunities? If so, why is he introducing this measure?

Mr. Clark: It is, of course, true that where wage increases are reflected in the price of the article produced, they may also be reflected in the balance sheet. However, whether that subsequently leads to bankruptcy depends on the individual case.
In the event that a report is commissioned, we propose to provide for the tribunal to make the necessary request to the expert, for the parties to be sent copies of the expert's report by the tribunal and for the parties to be able to make representations and produce evidence in respect of the expert's report in certain circumstances. The expert would not be open to examination.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Full stop.

Mr. Clark: Having outlined the legal framework, I should like to say a word or two about the practical effect of these regulations.
The current Equal Pay Act will, of course, still operate. This means that people doing work which they claim is similar to or already rated as equivalent to work done by a person of the opposite sex may have their claim considered by an industrial tribunal, which will consider their claim and also any defence the employer wishes to make to the effect that the difference in pay is genuinely due to a material difference other than sex.
As I mentioned earlier, under the current case law the defence of a genuine material difference other than sex has been interpreted to mean factors personal to the employee concerned—for example, merit, qualifications or length of service.
To take a concrete example, if a woman claims equal pay with a man who is doing the same work but who has worked in the establishment for 15 years longer, the employer is entitled to justify a higher pay for the man on the ground of his length of service, provided this is a genuine reason and not just an excuse for underpaying the woman.
Under the amending regulations which are the subject of this debate, an employee will be able to bring a claim for equal pay with an employee of the opposite sex working in the same employment on the ground that the work is of equal value. When this happens, conciliation will first be attempted, as in all equal pay claims. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the industrial tribunal will take the following steps. First, it will check that the work is not in fact so similar that the case can be heard under the current Act. Secondly, it will consider whether the jobs have already been covered by a job evaluation scheme and judged not to be of equal value. If this is the case, the claim may proceed only if the original job evaluation scheme is shown to have been sexually discriminatory.
Having decided that the case should proceed, the tribunal will first invite the parties to see if they can settle

the claim voluntarily. If not, the tribunal will consider whether to commission an independent expert to report on the value of the jobs. It will not commission an expert's report if it feels that it is unreasonable to determine the question of value — for example, if the two jobs are quite obviously of unequal value. Nor, as I have already explained, will it commission an expert's report if the employer shows at this stage that inequality in pay is due to material factors other than sex discrimination.

Mr. Janner: rose—

Mr. Clark: I have given way twice to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might be interesting if he develops his theme at greater length.
Let me here digress for a moment on the intention of this "material factors" provision, to which I said I would return. The draft regulations specifically provide that in these equal value cases the defence of material factors may go wider than the current defence of material difference other than the difference of sex.
What we have in mind are circumstances where the difference in pay is not due to personal factors between the man and the woman, but rather to skill shortages or other market forces. If a man is paid more than a woman for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply, this is not sexually discriminatory, provided the reason is genuine and the employer can show this.

Ms. Harriet Harman: The Minister mentioned market value as a material factor which could deny a woman her equal pay claim. Does he not recognise that the market awards higher pay to a man than it does to a woman because of the undervaluation of women's work in the market? The Minister will be providing a complete let-out if he allows market value as a way of excluding equal pay.

Mr. Clark: Market values on their own cannot operate in that way. What is true is that the market in some cases assesses women higher than men. I feel that it is safe to rely on the market, particularly as more women enter employment and their special skills become apparent in a wider area.
If a man is paid more than a women for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply, that is not sexually discriminatory, provided that the reason is genuine and the employer can show that. In making this provision, we have had regard to the reality that pay is not determined just by the demands made on the worker. At the same time, it must be possible for a woman to get equal pay if there is no good reason for the difference in pay other than sex discrimination.
I return to the procedure that will operate. If a tribunal considers that a claim of equal pay for work of equal value is clearly not going to succeed, either because the work is obviously not of equal value or because the employer has shown material factors unrelated to sex, the tribunal will dismiss the case. Otherwise, it will commission a report from an independent expert on the value of the jobs. Once the experts have reported, the tribunal will copy the report to the parties and at the subsequent hearing the parties will be able to make representations about the report, though not to cross-examine the expert. The tribunal's task will be to come to a decision on equal value in the light of the report.

Ms. Harman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clark: I have just given way to the hon. Lady. I am greatly looking forward to hearing her speech if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are nearly at the end.
If the tribunal finds the work to be of equal value, and comes to the view that there are no genuine material factors other than sex justifying the inequality of pay, it will make an award of equal pay. an award may be backdated to two years, as is the case in the current Act, but no backdating before the new regulations come into force will be possible. That means that, as the regulations will come into force on 1 January 1984, that full award of two years' back pay will not be possible until 1 January 1986.

Mr. John Gorst: What my hon. Friend is reading out is of enormous complexity. Bearing in mind that just before the Dissolution his predecessor came to the Select Committee on Employment to give advance warning of this measure, would it not be more sensible for there to be a delay before implementation, so that the Select Committee, when it is set up, can examine not only the complexity of what my hon. Friend is reading out but its impact on British industry? We should have a proper inquiry before we rush into this complicated measure.

Mr. Clark: Alas, the manner in which the regulations are submitted and verified is not for me. There may be an implied reproach in my hon. Friend's reference to my reading my speech, but as he has been in the Chamber throughout he will appreciate that the complexities are such that it can be presented only by copious reference to the printed word.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: There are considerable difficulties for the Minister and the House. He said that the matter could be understood only by copious reference to the printed word. It would have been much easier if the House had had a chance to read his speech before he delivered it.
In all seriousness, if we are to make a measured judgment, which has been made somewhat difficult by the interruptions of Opposition Members, would it not be to the advantage of the House and the good name of Parliament if hon. Members had a chance to read the speech and make a decision on it later?

Mr. Clark: To make a measured judgment requires a high level of concentration.
I hope that it will be apparent from what I have said that our aim has been to implement the European Court judgment sensibly and quickly, having regard to the need to comply with European law and at the same time safeguard employers against having to give equal pay where there is no sex discrimination.
We have responded to criticisms from the Equal Opportunities Commission and others and the draft regulations incorporate amendments which have been made as a result of comment and discussions during the consultative period.
I commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to a great deal of information that is not in the regulations. Is it in order to place regulations before the House and then read a prepared explanation of procedures that will take place following, presumably, other regulations not before the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Fortunately, the Minister's speech is not a matter for me.

Mr. Barry Jones: It is customary to welcome a new Minister to the Dispatch Box when he makes his first speech. I formally welcome the Minister. Many right hon. and hon. Members consider that he made a frivolous speech on an important subject about which they have strong feelings. Many of us looked forward to hearing serious and convincing views. On reflection, the Minister may consider that his speech was damaging and even demeaning to his Department, which has the tradition of Monckton and Macleod If he did not wish to address himself seriously to this matter, he might have borne in mind the conduct of those previous holders of office in his Department.
The Opposition are attempting to drag the Government —this is what the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Council for Civil Liberties also wish to do— perhaps kicking and screaming, into line with the spirit as well as the letter of the European Community's directive on equal pay. Our suspicion—indeed, almost conviction—is that this Administration would be pleased to see women penned in the environment of the kitchen and child-rearing against a background of almost perpetual mass unemployment.
The TUC has said that the Government, seem to take an obstructive attitude to women in the labour market. The Minister said that his Department had done something. I concede that some of the criticisms of the August 1982 and February 1983 proposals have caused the Government to modify their intentions.
The Opposition must emphasise today that the background is daunting for a woman who merely seeks a fair deal on equal pay. Later this year, for example, the fair wages resolution will be set aside. Historically, that resolution provided protection against employers paying less than a fair rate, so the scales are now more heavily weighted against a woman seeking and obtaining work at a reasonable wage. Last year the Department introduced the young workers scheme, which offers a generous subsidy to employers who pay less than £40 per week to their employees. The wages inspectorate — the grass roots police who cope with cheating employers — has been whittled down as a result of public expenditure cuts. Moreover, 17 industrial training boards were abolished last year, just when they had begun to offer women equal access to skills training — in many ways the key to higher wages.
Today the Minister has promulgated a three-page statutory instrument of Byzantine complexity. When did anything of that nature last come before the House?

Ms. Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only honourable course for a Minister who does not believe in the action that he is asked to recommend to the House is to resign?

Mr. Jones: That is ultimately a matter for the Minister, but I appreciate the strong feeling that has impelled my hon. Friend to make that and other interjections so far.
The statutory instrument is legal gobbledegook. It is an algebraic mystery — a small print bonanza for specialists. It is a daunting, obtuse maze of a measure and truly a stumbling block to a female complainant and her advisers, whoever they may be.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The lawyers will be quids in.

Mr. Jones: At this late stage in the debate I suggest that the House should consider briefly the passage beginning at line 16 of regulation 3. Those 11 unfathomable lines are virtually incapable of comprehension by this honourable House. Nothing that the Minister has said or that the Department has sought to put before us today has enabled any conscientious right hon. or hon. Member fully to comprehend what is proposed. That is the most disappointing aspect of the Minister's speech.
The new section 2A(1) is very much open to criticism on the ground of lack of candour. At present, tribunals may either find for the applicant or reject the application. Under the new proposals there is a third option—to decide that there are no reasonable grounds for determining the question. Tribunals already have adequate powers to deal with trivial, frivolous or vexatious cases. Moreover, the new instrument proposes that a pre-hearing assessment may be used by the tribunal to warn the applicant that costs may be awarded against her.
When those applications have been knocked out, it is hard to see what class of cases section 2A(1)(a) is intended to cover. A tribunal that has gone sufficiently deeply into the merits of an application to form a judgment that there are no reasonable grounds to determine that the woman's work is of equal value to the man's has, to all intents and purposes, determined the question before it, but the Minister did not make that clear. To decide that there are no reasonable grounds for determining equal value is to determine the question. The distinction between determining that a woman's work is not of equal value to a man's and rejecting it on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds for determining that they are of equal value is purely semantic and can only obscure the truth. The Minister has advanced a highly restricted view of what constitutes equal value. That is the kernel of our reservations.
The Minister has put time against all of us. I hope that my hon. Friends will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are no draft procedural regulations, so uncertainties remain. Will the procedural regulations provide for compulsory adjournments to encourage the voluntary settlement of cases? What qualifications will the independent experts have? What guidance will the independent experts be given? What will happen if an employer refuses to co-operate with an expert who has been commissioned to make a report?
On a matter of such importance and topicality it is utterly unsatisfactory not to present the draft procedural regulations. Moreover, we fault the Government for providing only 90 minutes, under the affirmative resolution procedure, to debate these amending regulations. The House might be aware that the Government are using the procedure under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970. They are using that device rather than adopting the route of primary legislation. The Opposition maintain that the latter route would have guaranteed the tabling of amendments and facilitated a genuine debate. In those circumstances, the House might have had the benefit of the Minister's explanation of the regulations. We have had no such explanation today.
It has become clear that Conservative Members do not know what their Minister is proposing. Worse than that,

notwithstanding interventions, the Minister made a lengthy speech—but in it there was no sense, rhyme or reason. It is astonishing that that should happen. When did right hon. and hon. Members last witness what we have experienced today? It must be a long time. It is utterly reprehensible for the Treasury Bench to treat the House in that way. It might be that the House has not heard the last of this issue. Perhaps the Minister will want to come back to the House before long, even if he does not consider his own position.
The Department could have given the Minister a brief. The Opposition can get one. Worse, however, is the use of the section 2 procedure rather than primary legislation, ruling out the possibility of the amending legislation being fully retrospective. The Department has taken a sneaky and diabolical liberty. Women should have been entitled to the right to claim equal pay for work of equal value since 1976. However, no order made under section 2 can take effect earlier than the date on which the order is made. Hence, under the amending regulations, no equal value claim will be heard before January 1984 and no tribunal will be able to award to a successful claimant the maximum compensation of two years' back pay until January 1986. The Minister should know that that contrasts unfavourably with the Government's stance on retrospective compensation for victims of the closed shop in the Employment Act 1982. The regulations and the closed shop legislation were two powerful, politically motivated decisions. Under the regulations women will get a shabby deal, and the Minister has been the vehicle of that shabby deal.
Britain is suffering from a severe economic crisis, and every resource must be utilised to speed our industrial and social reconstruction. North sea oil deposits are a prime factor in our fight for survival as an industrial state, but so, too, is our human capital. In this assessment of our national resources, it is apparent to many that Britain's economic resurgence would be more certain and speedier if the undoubted talents and capabilities of millions of women were more readily engaged and the discriminatory barriers against them broken down. The Department of Employment is in the hands of obstructionists. Ministerial responses to European directives are lacklustre, grudging, without conviction, cynical, shabby, and certainly equivocal, as we saw tonight.
A golden opportunity has been missed. This seems like a sell-out to employers' interests. It is a betrayal of the just proposals of those dedicated organisations that have argued positively for a better deal for women at work. The regulations represent the policy of a Government who are walking forwards with their face set stubbornly to the past. The Government should have brought forward primary legislation. The procedural regulations have not yet been published. There is no retrospective legislation. The regulations fall short of the standards required by the directive. It is obvious that the Government's commitment is half-hearted. We shall vote against the regulations.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sorry that we had a hysterical purple patch in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I have seldom heard anything so intemperate and unjustified in the four years that I have been in the House.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has not read his own speeches.

Mr. Marlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his speech, which made what for us is a very complex issue more or less intelligible and very human. It is as I understand it, my hon. Friend's first time at the Dispatch Box. Some people would look upon it as being a baptism of fire. I think that the problem with the measure that he had to bring to us was that he was in greater danger of being drowned in his own indigestion, and I can quite understand why. It is a most indigestible, unpleasant and unpalatable measure. There are bastard regulations, born out of the Equal Opportunities Commission and sired by the European Court of Justice. It may be the other way round, depending on which of those two organisations is the more butch.
The regulation states:
An equality clause shall not operate … if the employer proves
something to do with sex. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, the employer is assumed to be wrong, is assumed to be guilty, is assumed to be in breach, unless proved innocent. This is a novel concept in British law. Our employers have enough to put up with without that.
The measure also states that equal pay should be given for work of equal value. Any trouble maker or any potential irritated employee is going to pretend that her work is of equal value. It is an open invitation to any feminist, any harridan or any rattle-headed female with a chip on her bra strap to take action against her employer.
I have heard of barrackroom lawyers and sea lawyers. This is a charter for petticoat lawyers. Why on earth do the Conservative Government bring this nonsense before the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.'] I understand that as a Conservative Government we are determined to keep public expenditure under control. This does nothing of the sort. It increases public expenditure. I understand that as a Conservative Government we are determined to take the burdens off business and to reduce bureaucracy. This puts massive additional burdens on business and industry, and increases bureaucracy. People will be taking pettifogging cases against their companies, and that will cause strife, concern, trouble, cost and disruption to business and industry. It will cause otherwise successful companies to have problems—perhaps even go bankrupt—and it will cause a loss of jobs.
I understand that we in the Conservative party believe in the market.

Ms. Clare Short: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way, because I shall be brief and I am about to sit down.
Surely, we in the Conservative party believe in the market. There is a different market in many respects between male labour and female labour. The majority of men go to work for a different reason than the majority of women. I do not say all men and all women. Do we not believe in a market? If we introduce these regulations, we shall interfere with the workings of the market. Why? I know why. The reason is that we believe that we are a law-abiding party, and the law has been passed, a directive has been issued, and the European Court of Justice has said that we must take action. Therefore, we must take action.
There is one thing that is more important than that. We here are a law-making Parliament, and I think that it is more important that the laws that we make here should not be bad laws than that we abide by the laws of an institution

the other side of the Channel. This is nonsense. We should be against it. We should throw it out. I shall vote against it and I plead with my colleagues to join me.

Ms. Jo Richardson: Twenty-four hours ago in this Chamber we began a debate about Members' pay. The Benches on both sides were packed. I wish that this debate were conducted with the same seriousness as last night's debate.
One of the central themes that ran through that debate was how we could equate our jobs with an outside job specification so that we would not have the unpleasant task from time to time of deciding upon the level of our own pay. We wanted to be linked—in that case, with the Civil Service. In a way, that is what this debate is about. It is about the concept of equal work for equal value for many millions of women who are not in a job and not in a position where they have a man alongside them with whom they can compare their rates of pay.
This debate is about low pay. In a disgraceful speech, which he gabbled at a rate of knots, making it even more incomprehensible than it already was, the Minister—like the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) — showed that the Government lack any understanding of what it is like for women who work in low-paid jobs. We are here to try to lift women out of that situation.
There is no doubt that the equal pay legislation left out of consideration the many millions of women who should have been included in the first place. The Government are not doing that properly by these regulations. As has been said, it should have been done by amending the Equal Pay Act 1970.
Much has been said about the consultation procedure to which the Minister referred, which has gone on for 12 months. The majority of the opinions that have been sent to the Department of Employment have said, "For God's sake drop the regulations and do the thing properly." The Department should bring in equal pay for work of equal value on a proper basis. That has been the criticism from the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fawcett society and the all-party equality group which I chair jointly with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). We had two meetings to which we invited a large number of organisations, not necessarily those that would be described as feminist. For example, there were the soroptomists, the townswomen's guilds and representatives of the political parties. All were against the way that this is being done. All were in favour of extending the Equal Pay Act in order to do the job properly.
It is a disgrace that Britain should be taken to court because it failed to fulfil its obligation to introduce the concept in the first place. That will happen again because these regulations do not do the job properly. I emphasise that it is disgraceful to take these steps by way of regulations.
It has been clearly demonstrated tonight that these are complex and badly written regulations. Regulation 2(1)(i) says:
if (apart from the equality clause) any term of the woman's contract is or becomes less favourable to the woman than a term of a similar kind in the contract under which that man is employed, that term of the woman's contract shall be treated as so modified as not to be less favourable".


I defy any man or woman to decide when they are reading that whether they can bring a case for equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Has my hon. Friend noticed that regulation 2(1) is a single sentence of 186 words, with 12 verbs, three subordinate clauses and two clauses subordinate to subordinate clauses? Does she believe, as I do, that it must be possible to write that lot in comprehensible English?

Ms Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had not counted the words. It is difficult to mouth some of them. The National Council for Civil Liberties has drawn up a model Bill which it introduced at a press conference in the House on Monday and I shall be happy to send the Minister a copy of it. That Bill introduces the concept in a proper way as an amendment to the Equal Pay Act. It is perfectly possible to do it properly, comprehensibly and in a way which will help women. We are here to help women out of the low paid ghetto-like occupations in which they find themselves.
If an employer has a job evaluation scheme which claims to justify the wage differential that will be a complete block to any claim based on equal value unless the woman can prove that that scheme is sex discriminatory. I do not know how she can possibly undertake that task. A woman may feel that she deserves to get more pay. She is faced with the daunting prospect of taking on an employer without the benefit of legal aid. That is the first obstacle that a woman will have to face.
The regulations propose a new section 1(3), in which a new form of material difference defence is set out. What is now proposed is that the material difference defence shall be substantially different and considerably less difficult for the employer to prove. Far from the regulations disadvantaging employers, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North appeared to suggest, they advantage employers all the way through. The employers must prove that the variation is
genuinely due to a material factor which is not the difference of sex".
Whereas in like work the material factor must—that is the operative word—be a material difference between the woman's case and the man's, in this particular case the word has been changed from "must" to "may". As we all know, when "may" is used, there is no need to bother. That is the plain fact. From the imperative it has now gone down to not needing to bother. That is a very serious disadvantage to a woman when she is trying to tackle her own case.
Far from giving the employer an advantage, the regulations give powers to the tribunal which the tribunal does not have in other equal pay circumstances and cases. The tribunal can dismiss a case if it thinks that there are no reasonable grounds for deciding that the jobs are of equal value. There is nothing in the regulations which suggests that the woman, the applicant, has the right of appeal, or, as far as I can see, need even be informed as to why the tribunal does not think that she has a case. The tribunal will establish yea or nay, and no guidance is given in the measure. Even so, if the woman gets over most of those obstacles and gets through, the tribunal, as the Minister said, brings in an expert. Again, the regulations do not specify what the expert is to do or who he will be.

I would bet my bottom dollar that the experts will all be men. The regulations do not say what guidelines there will be for selecting the experts, or what guidelines there will be for the experts in the way they are to work. What is to happen in this case is a mystery.

Ms. Harman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing in the regulations to say that the expert, when producing the report, must come to the industrial tribunal to be cross-examined on it? The regulations do not say that the experts have to give reasons in their report. Does she agree that it is not clear from the regulations whether the industrial tribunal is free to override the experts' report, or whether the woman claimant can bring in her own expert to challenge the experts? The order simply leaves it completely blank.

Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that we are right to try to throw out the regulations, because they are riddled with holes, and there is no way in which they can help any woman to achieve the objective which is apparent in the judgment of the European Court.

Mr. Janner: My hon. Friend referred to regulation 3 and the proposed section 2A(1)(a). Does she agree that a "not" or a "no" has been omitted? In its present form the provision is incomprehensible. My hon. Friend, like the Minister, has tried to make some sense out of it, but it appears that it is impossible to do so because the wording is incorrect.

Ms. Richardson: I had not noticed that. The regulations are incomprehensible and it is difficult or impossible to find one's way through the negatives and double negatives. I defy anyone, including the Minister, who appears no longer to be listening, to make any sense out of them.
The Government have built the equal value concept into the existing procedure for individual complaints. The emphasis is on the industrial tribunal rather than the central arbitration committee. There is no procedure for considering the wider and desirable effects of collective pay structures. What will happen if a woman who works in a factory brings a case and wins? What will happen to the collective agreement which has been negotiated with her employers by her union? If the employer says, "Mrs. Jones has won her case and I must apply her rate of pay to her working colleagues," that will be all right. But if the employer refuses to do that, will each one of her colleagues working alongside her have to bring an individual case? The mind boggles at the difficulties that will arise if we proceed with the regulations.
As I have said, the NCCL has produced a model Bill and I commend it to the Minister. However, this afternoon I presented a private Member's Bill—I was fortunate in the Ballot—called the Sex Equality Bill. I propose to amend and tighten up the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation. At the same time we could take on board the issues that are now before us.
The Government must do better than this. If they wish to be a credible Administration for women, especially low-paid women, in the world outside where people live and work, they must show them that they have a commitment to eradicating low pay. It is not good enough to adopt this miserable skinflint approach that will prevent women from getting what is just and fair. I hope that Members will vote


against the regulations and that the Government will introduce proper legislation to ensure that women get the decent deal that we all know they deserve.

Mr. Hal Miller: The Opposition have been ill-advised in their choice of attack, both in their approach to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and to the regulations. It should be remembered that the draft regulations were produced in February in an endeavour to comply with the law as conceived by the European Court in as short a time as possible. This is a genuine attempt to amend current legislation to comply with the findings of the European Court in as short a set of regulations as possible after a lengthy period of consultation. Calls for a Bill would inevitably mean the procedure of Standing Committee examination, and, as the comments of some of my hon. Friends have showed, that would probably be a protracted and uncertain process. However, these regulations, thanks to the European Communities Act, are capable of being put through with dispatch to comply with the law and to give the Opposition what they are asking for.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Miller: I shall not give way. I have only a short time in which to speak and the hon. Lady has already made an intervention.
These regulations are a genuine attempt to fulfil our obligations and to meet the reasonable aspirations of women, but all we get is criticism about their complexity. The complexity arises from trying to legislate at all in this area. Many hon. Members have had severe reservations about that attempt. The Equal Pay Act has been on the statute book since 1970, but in the intervening years of Labour government there has not been much attempt to deal with the matter. Here is a positive attempt, which has been out for consultation since February, going through under the expedited procedure.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be giving way.

Mr. Miller: I am certainly not giving, way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to be brief, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
I am attempting to deal with a complex problem. Part of the complexity arises from the difficulty of legislating in the area of human relations—an extremely dubious form of endeavour.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) rightly drew attention to the difference between "must" and "may" in new subsection (3) of section 1 of the Equal Pay Act. The hon. Lady will not be surprised if I take a different view from her on the effect of that, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could confirm that it is intended to allow a wider discussion than is available under new subsection 3(a) where there is a "must" in the case of a job evaluation or it is the same job. Where there has not been a job evaluation, a wider range of factors can be taken into account. That was the hon. Lady's fear, as I understood it, but if she pauses to reflect she will understand that it is only reasonable that there should be a wider range if it is not the same job and is not the subject of job evaluation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said market forces must have an effect. We are talking about the employment of women and job opportunities for women. There is a real danger that the Opposition will be pricing their friends out of jobs —[Interruption.] This must be faced. There is far too much theory from the Opposition. I am concerned to do something practical to ensure that people can get employment and have the protection of legislation. The Opposition laugh about legislation, but we are trying to ensure that it is effective to give equal opportunities, which I thought was a common objective. Perhaps the Opposition do not want equal opportunities.
It is important to understand that there are market forces. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that we are trying to eliminate sex discrimination. That is the object of the exercise. The Opposition may laugh, but that is the object of the regulations. The elimination of discrimination lies behind the regulations. We are trying to comply with the European Court. We are trying to get involved not in the further and wider discussion that the hon. Member for Barking was raising, but in the further, wider and different discussion whether anyone, man or woman, should get the same pay for work of so-called equal value which an independent body is supposed to evaluate. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to help us on that aspect. This is an important matter. We are making a genuine attempt to comply with the law to eliminate sex discrimination, and to do it in as short a period as possible.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Because it is late in the debate, I will speak much more briefly than I had intended, bearing in mind the seriousness of the issue we are considering. It should be on the record that members of the alliance parties were as shocked as the official Opposition by the Minister's speech. One might have wanted to attribute it to first night nerves, but he is not a notably nervous gentleman. One might have wanted to attribute it to incompetence, but it was not covered with appropriate humility.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), whose remarks were ruled out of order on the grounds that they were unparliamentary, was clearly aware of the reality of the situation, the nature of which I believe the Minister had mistaken; he thought he was delivering an after-dinner speech, a task to which he is more suited.
It is inappropriate, in seeking to bring the law of this country into line with the judgment, to proceed by way of secondary legislation in a matter as complex as this. The Minister, in his wanderings through a 35-minute speech, did nothing to explain the matters before the House. There are many issues which we would have wished to debate in Committee and amendments we would have proposed.
The Minister asked us to accept that the Government had succeeded in their objective of bringing our law into line with that of the European Court of Justice. I believe that the Government have failed to do that and that not only is it wasting the time of the House to introduce a measure of this kind, but that it will almost certainly result in further action being taken in the European Court, which will again prove this country to be in breach of its obligations to women under the equal pay directive.

Mr. Jim Craigen: In the legal advice given to the Equal Opportunities Commission, it


was suggested that the Government were falling foul of the European Court on six counts. It seems that as a result of the regulations we will now fall foul of the court on three counts.

Mr. Maclennan: It is not possible in a debate as brief as this to go through all the grounds on which this instrument falls short of the judgment, so I will deal with only two. First, if one considers the procedures set out in the regulations, their sole object appears to be to deter the maximum number of applicants from seeking remedy and to provide the greatest possible resistance to those who persist. That would be objectionable in itself if it did not involve procedures which are themselves arguably in breach of Community law requirements.
Reference has been made to he the independent expert's report. A reasoned report is necessary so that it should be possible to challenge the basis on which the findings of the independent expert have been made, but there is no such provision in the measure. Under the regulations, the expert is not to be permitted to be available for cross-examination. The applicant therefore has no direct way of presenting any challenge at all, and she is not permitted to present alternative expert evidence to sustain the challenge. These two possibilities having been excluded, what is the substance of the fair hearing to which she is supposed to be entitled?
In putting forward this proposition, the Government are denying the applicant the right to a fair hearing, to which she is entitled under article 6(1) of th European human rights convention. The regulations do the House no honour at all. The Government have proceeded in a disgraceful manner, and the Minister's wholly frivolous approach to the legislation was an unfortunate debut which I believe he will come to regret. He made it plain that he does not support the contents or the purposes of the legislation, and he distinguished between the implicit and the explicit views which Ministers can express at the Dispatch Box. Although he mentioned that the Government sought to implement equal pay provisions, he left the house in no doubt about where he stood. Many of his hon. Friends enjoyed his implied repudiation of these regulations and all that they stand for. It is time that television was allowed to reveal the dishonesty of such a proceeding.
I and my hon. Friends will vote against the regulations in the hope that a better piece of legislation will be brought forward—primary legislation, subject to amendment—and that our obligations under the European Community legislation will be fully met.
Finally, my only criticism of much of what was said by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was that it is somewhat surprising to hear the Labour party, which is wedded to pulling this country out of the European Community, urging us to rely upon the European Community to advance our protection of the equal opportunities of women in this country.

Ms. Harman: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Maclennan: Labour and Conservative Governments alike—

Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: Labour and Conservative Governments alike have been slower than the European Community to legislate for the benefit of women.

Mr. Greville Janner: These are thoroughly bad regulations, and were introduced in a way that was tasteless, sad and unrevealing. Even for those who are trained to understand legislation, the regulations are impossible to interpret. We must pity those who will have to try to understand them in order to put them into effect. To mention only one example, it is clear that a negative has been left out of new section 2A(1)(a). If there is to be any hope of the regulations being put into useful effect, they will require immediate amendment.
The House has been kept in total ignorance of the way in which the regulations are to be put into force. The procedural regulations have been outlined by the Minister but have not been put before the House for our consideration. We understand that there are to be ways in which independent assessors, who are not to be brought before tribunal—

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of ordr, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have nearly reached the end of a debate lasting for an hour and a half, and, of necessity, the Minister had to spend about 36 minutes explaining to the House the technicalities of this complicted legislation. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked questions, presumably on the asumption that the Minister might be able to answer them. In view of the fact that time is limited—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is as on the Order Paper—

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, under Standing Order No. 3(1)(b), power is given to the Chair to decide that, in view of the importance of the subject matter, there has been inadequate time for the debate and that it should be adjourned. As the issue is clearly important, as there was an alternative means of legislating, and as the Minister has not been able to reply to the debate, may I ask you to exercise your discretion in that regard?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am aware of the Standing Order and had it in my mind throughout the debate. However, I think that the House is ready to come to a decision, and I shall accordingly put the Question.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 107.

Division No. 36]
[12 midnight


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Ashby, David
Brinton, Tim


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bruinvels, Peter


Baldry, Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butterfill, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Blaker, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bottomley, Peter
Colvin, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Conway, Derek


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Coombs, Simon






Cope, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Couchman, James
MacGregor, John


Cranborne, Viscount
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Malins, Humfrey


Dicks, T.
Malone, Gerald


Dorrell, Stephen
Maples, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Marland, Paul


Dover, Denshore
Marlow, Antony


Dunn, Robert
Mates, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Maude, Francis


Evennett, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fallon, Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mellor, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Merchant, Piers


Forth, Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Franks, Cecil
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Freeman, Roger
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Roger


Galley, Roy
Montgomery, Fergus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moore, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Gorst, John
Morrison, hon P. (Chester)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gregory, Conal
Mudd, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Murphy, Christopher


Ground, Patrick
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Norris, Steven


Harvey, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Osborn, Sir John


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hayward, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Heddle, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hickmet, Richard
Pollock, Alexander


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Powell, William (Corby)


Holt, Richard
Powley, John


Howard, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Raffan, Keith


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Hugh


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sackville, Hon Thomas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Latham, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H,


Lawler, Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lightbown, David
Terlezki, Stefan


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lord, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Luce, Richard
Warren, Kenneth





Watts, John
Mr. David Hunt and



Mr. John Major.


Tellers for the Ayes:



NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Litherland, Robert


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Edward


Barron, Kevin
McCrea, Rev William


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McCusker, Harold


Beith, A. J.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McKelvey, William


Boyes, Roland
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Madden, Max


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Maginnis, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Marek, Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Michie, William


Clay, Robert
Mikardo, Ian


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cohen, Harry
Molyneaux, James


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Nellist, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nicholson, J.


Cowans, Harry
O'Neill, Martin


Craigen, J. M.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Paisley, Rev Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Penhaligon, David


Deakins, Eric
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Dobson, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dormand, Jack
Prescott, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Redmond, M.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eadie, Alex
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Eastham, Ken
Robertson, George


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rogers, Allan


Ewing, Harry
Rooker, J. W.


Fatchett, Derek
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Favell, Anthony
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fisher, Mark
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Flannery, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Freud, Clement
Sedgemore, Brian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Godman, Dr Norman
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Gould, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Hardy, Peter
Soley, Clive


Harman, Ms Harriet
Spearing, Nigel


Haynes, Frank
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Wareing, Robert


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Welsh, Michael


Hume, John
Winnick, David


Janner, Hon Greville



Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfedder, James A.
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Housing Benefits)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
The order would enable the housing benefits schemes in Northern Ireland to be broadly aligned with the corresponding Great Britain schemes from November 1983 to coincide with the annual uprating of social security benefits. The underlying reasons for the reform are the same as they were in Great Britain and can be briefly summarised as follows.
At present there are two separate systems for assisting people on low income with their rent and rates. The first is supplementary benefit and the second is the rebate and allowance schemes. That means that a householder must claim from one body—the Department of Health and Social Services — if he is entitled to supplementary benefit, but from a different body, either his local rates office or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, if he is not receiving supplementary benefit. It has been recognised for some time that that dual system is unsatisfactory. It means that a claimant can be better off under one scheme rather than the other and it can be difficult even for experts to decide which scheme would be more advantageous in particular cases.
The present arrangements also mean that the DHSS is spending time recording, verifying and paying supplementary benefit for rent and rates claimants who in turn are required to hand the amounts involved over to the rates office or the housing executive. That is not a sensible or efficient way of administering public money, particularly when one compares it with the long-standing practice of rebating at source the rent and rates of people not on supplementary benefit.
Another problem is that a considerable number of people who receive supplementary benefit for their rent and rates fail to pay them. That in turn leads to costly administrative procedures for deducting and paying benefits direct to the landlord or rates office.
Lastly, as the House will recognise, one of the main causes of complexity in the supplementary benefit scheme lies in its provisions for assistance with housing costs. It is highly desirable to simplify that scheme by extending the scope of the existing rebate and allowance schemes to include supplementary benefit recipients.
The proposed reform tackles those issues and I draw the attention of hon. Members to some of its advantages. The main cause of the better-off problem will disappear because claimants will not longer have to choose between receiving either a rebate or a supplementary benefit rent addition. The reform will also result in greater efficiency in the use of limited administrative resources.

Mr. Clive Soley: I cannot let that statement slip through without comment. Surely the Minister is not claiming that the better-off problem will disappear. Or is he? It will not. However, that was one of the aims of the original idea.

Mr. Patten: People will no longer be faced with the problem of not knowing whether they would be better off under one scheme than the other. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to argue that proposition, I look forward to his doing so in his speech.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): Move along, Chris.

Mr. Patten: I shall move along as rapidly as the quondam Patronage Secretary will allow me.
The reform will also result in greater efficiency in the use of limited administrative resources, although I should not wish to argue that point too strongly. In future, householders will look to only one body for help with their rent and rates regardless of whether they are in work or unemployed. The reform should also result in more householders taking up their entitlement to housing benefits and supplementary benefit, an objective of successive Governments over the years.
Finally, there is expected to be a substantial reduction —well over £600,000 a year—in rent and rates default. Some concern has been voiced, particularly by the Northern Ireland Assembly, that rebating will leave people on supplementary benefit with less flexibility in budgeting. The other side to this, however, is that most of them will no longer run the risk of getting into debt. This is one area in which prevention seems to be much better than cure.
There are, therefore, sound reasons for this reform. In recommending its introduction in Northern Ireland, the Government have had regard to experience in Great Britain and I am glad to be able to suggest certain improvements. I shall come to those in a moment. The order which we are debating is an enabling provision and at this point it may be useful to summarise its main articles.
Article 3 provides regulation-making powers for rebate and allowance schemes. The regulations will be made by the DHSS, but the schemes themselves will be operated by the Department of the Environment and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The proposed regulations were described in considerable detail in the explanatory document which accompanied the proposal and will be modified in the light of constructive representations received during the consultative period.
Article 4 provides for uprating, and Article 5 requires the bodies administering the schemes to publicise them fully. Articles 6 to 8 deal mainly with financial and regulatory matters as well as providing for the exchange of essential information between the bodies concerned.
I fully recognise that some aspects of the reform have led to expressions of genuine concern by Members of this House and others who, while accepting the need for change, would have preferred that no existing beneficiary should receive less than he does at present. This view came across very clearly in the detailed and cogently presented report of the Health and Social Services Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, I pay tribute to that Committte of the Assembly for thevery thorough way in which it examined the original proposals. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) knows, similar concern was voiced by the housing executive and other interested bodies.
It has not been possible for the Government to accept all of the recommendations put forward on the proposed reform. In particular, the principle of rebating rent and rates at source which caused so much debate in the Assembly is a tried and tested feature of the existing rebate and allowance schemes and is fundamental to the proposed


reform. It should be more convenient for claimants and, as I have already said, will lead to a saving in public funds of more than £600,000 a year.
Nor can the Government accept the recommendation that there should be no losers under the reform. This would be too costly an option and would entail pumping additional resources into benefits for claimants many of whom have incomes considerably above supplementary benefit level or have non-dependants living with them who can reasonably be expected to contribute towards the householder's rent and rates.
Careful consideration has nevertheless been given to the problem of losers and I am glad to tell the House of two significant modifications which the Government intend to make to the Northern Ireland scheme. First, it is proposed to allow more generous protection against losses arising from changes in the taper percentages which, as hon. Members will know, are used to calculate housing benefit awards. Originally, it was intended to limit such losses to 60p per week for roughly four months and to £1·20 per week for the remainder of the first year of the reformed schemes. Instead, the Government now propose to protect beneficiaries against losses in excess of 50p per week from November 1983 to November 1984 and in excess of £1 per week from November 1984 to November 1985. Secondly, the housing benefit child's needs allowance will be increased by £1·50 from November 1983. That is £1 more than will apply under the Great Britain schemes from November 1983 to April 1984.
The net result of those changes is that some 32,000 beneficiaries will gain from the reform, the number of losers will be reduced to about 20,000 and the amount of individual losses will be substantially reduced in about 5,000 cases. I believe that we have shown a proper sense of priorities in the changes. Those who will gain will be pensioners at the lower end of the income scale and families with children. I am sure the House will acknowledge that it is right to concentrate the limited resources available on those groups of claimants.
The extra cost of the two improvements will be upwards of £500,000 over the next three financial years and this will he found from within existing Northern Ireland resources. About one half of this amount will fall in the current financial year. It was these improvements which, I imagine, led the NIHE to say that our scheme provided
generous treatment for NI Householders in comparison with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) may wish to bear that in mind.
I also note that in his own comments on our modified proposals the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), chairman of the DHSS Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, while quite reasonably reiterating some of his Committee's original criticisms, argued nevertheless that the
reformed scheme … will be fairer to claimants",
that it will
reduce the risk of claimants being lost in a mass of bureaucracy",
that it will
result in less financial hardship than the one originally proposed
and
that it will reduce the impact on hard pressed parents".
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's fairminded observations. We have been able to

accomplish those objectives not least because of the assistance and thoughtful criticism that we received from the hon. Gentleman and his Committee.
In response to further recommendations by the Assembly and others it is proposed to make additional improvements in the Northern Ireland scheme designed to provide greater equity between different categories of claimant and to ensure prompt payment of rebates and allowances. These detailed changes are explained fully in the Government's response to the Assembly report, copies of which are available to hon. Members.
In addition to those improvements, we should not lose sight of other beneficial changes which will flow from the reform. For example, boarders will become eligible for housing benefits for the first time and, in certain circumstances, including cases in which a wife is forced to leave home because of domestic violence, housing benefits will be payable for two homes and not just one as at present.
A major innovation to which I draw the attention of the House is the introduction of appellate machinery. In future, people claiming rebates and allowances who are dissatisfied with their awards will be able to have their cases considered by review boards. These will comprise a chairman and two members and they will operate independently of the bodies administering the schemes. This is different from the position in Great Britain where the local authorities operate the schemes and provide the appellate machinery. Because of the different administrative structures in Northern Ireland, the Government have decided that the review boards should be independent of the bodies operating the schemes. I am sure that the House will acknowledge that this is an important provision.
I also emphasise that the Government are fully aware of the need to publicise the proposed changes in the schemes so that claimants will know how they will be affected. As well as publicising the reform in the mass media, all existing beneficiaries will receive individual notifications before the reform is due to be implemented. Arrangements will also be made to explain the effects of the reform to voluntary bodies involved in giving advice to the public.
To sum up briefly, it has long been recognised that the existing schemes of assistance with housing costs are flawed and in need of reform. It was for those reasons that the House approved legislation in 1982 providing for reform of the corresponding schemes in Great Britain. The Government consider it essential that similar measures be implemented in Northern Ireland from November 1983, thus ensuring that the advantages to be derived from the reform are realised at the earliest possible date. I am grateful, however, to all those, particularly members of the Assembly and the housing executive, whose comments have resulted in worthwhile modifications to the original proposal, producing what I consider to be a much improved scheme.
The concept of unifying the present dual system has received general support, including the approval of the Social Security Advisory committee. The later start in Northern Ireland and the much smaller scale of the exercise there as compared with Great Britain should facilitate a smooth transition to the new system. The reform is a genuine attempt to tackle difficult problems, and will bring material benefits to those in greatest need.


Its operation will be closely monitored, not least by myself in view of my dual responsibility for housing and for income support in Northern Ireland.
I strongly commend the order to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: The order is for Northern Ireland what it always was for the rest of the United Kingdom—a squalid and sordid attempt to cut back on public expenditure at the expense of some of the most low-paid groups of people, and the Minister knows it. Having listened to his speech, I am convinced that he will get some form of honorary qualification in creative literature. For phrases such as "significant improvements" he should substitute "insignificant improvements". The order is unsatisfactory for many reasons.
I should like to congratulate the Northern Ireland assembly. I do not always do that so readily, but its report and recommendations are clear, fair and well stated. It is significant that the main recommendation was that the order should not be extended to Northern Ireland. I can understand why.
The Government's objective was that the order should make it easier to understand and, therefore, to obtain benefit. Secondly, it was supposed to be fair to the employed and the unemployed alike. Thirdly, it was supposed to minimise losses to individuals. Fourthly, it was supposed to make the system easier to operate and to reduce the work load on the public sector. Fifthly, there was to be no increase in expenditure on housing assistance. That is significant. Sixthly, it was supposed to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. I dare say that Democratic Unionist and Official Unionist Members will be aware of the way in which it has been changed for Northern Ireland. Finally, it was supposed to ensure that extra local government costs were met by the Government.
In the United Kingdom, the order has been a disastrous failure. It has been bungled here, and I suspect that it will be bungled in Northern Ireland, too. I do not say that lightly. In my constituency, within about four weeks, 4,000 people still had not had their benefit. Hon. Members have had letters, especially from old age pensioners, saying that they have never been in rent arrears but are now because they no longer have the right to pay their rent as they used to pay it. The Minister and Conservative Members know that that is happening. A significant example is Birmingham.
The application form is supposed to be simplified. I have one here. It involves answering complex and detailed questions. The scheme has never been easy, yet it was supposed not to be complex. Moreover, there are too many losers. We do not have figures for Northern Ireland yet, but on the mainland we know that one in eight households in Britain is losing. Yet the Minister glossed over that fact in his creative literature. The speed with which it was implemented caused acute problems for local authorities and claimants, which is why so many people are in difficulties now. The same thing will happen in Northern Ireland unless the Minister slows down the implementation, or makes available more resources quickly. I do not expect him to do the latter. Some slight modifications have been beneficial, but they are not significant.
After the assembly failed to obtain rejection of the proposals, it got some anodyne concessions. That is no

insult to the Members of the Northern Ireland assembly, who worked very hard. They examined much evidence and questioned people with knowledge and experience of the working of the scheme in Great Britain. However, the Government rejected a relatively cheap no loser scheme that would have cost about £1·9 million, or about 3 per cent. of the total housing benefit costs in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chris Patten: indicated dissent.

Mr. Soley: The Minister denies that. Perhaps he can give us alternative figures. The Government put forward a complex and traditional protection scheme. Although the Minister talked about improvements, what we are discussing is a little cushioning over a period so that people can get used to the idea that the amounts available to them have been reduced.
The "better off" problem has not been solved, yet the Government made it clear that their main aim was to get rid of it. Both the present Minister and his predecessor made it clear that they were genuinely worried about the problem, but they have done little to resolve it. Claimants will still have difficulty in determining which scheme is best for them. The Government conceded the point, but rejected the assembly's sensible recommendations. First, the assembly said that the housing executive has a duty to make an assessment for housing benefit supplement. The Minister rejected that. Secondly, the assembly recommended that benefits should be payable from the date of the claimant's initial application to either agency, but that, too, was rejected. Thirdly, it said that power should be given to backdate entitlement to the date of the original application, but again that was rejected.
I do not call those significant improvements. At best, it is a shabby deal to try to keep down overall costs. I have acknowledged at the Dispatch Box on several occasions that in Northern Ireland we have a gallant band of slightly liberal Tories trying to do a bit better for the people there, and that the Secretary of State is gathering round him a few of his protected species of left-wing Tories before the Prime Minister rounds them all up. However, despite that, the improvements are marginal. The Government have not kept to the aims that they so explicitly stated. It is no accident that the guidelines were not reproduced in Northern Ireland. When the Government saw that the scheme introduced here did not deliver the goods in the way that they had claimed, they did not produce similar guidelines for Northern Ireland, because it was too embarrassing.
The assembly asked the Government to ensure that the proposed scheme was thoroughly publicised, and to consider the advantages of a well-publicised leaflet drop. In reply, the Government stated:
The Government welcomes the Assembly's interest in this important aspect of the proposed reform and accepts its recommendation that the new schemes should be thoroughly publicised.
When one translates that into the Minister's creative literature, it means, "Is this not a dangerously good idea, and might it not cost us some money unless we lose it quickly?"
So we come to the final phrase in the Government's response to the assembly report:
In formulating these plans consideration will be given to the Assembly's recommendation for a selective leaflet drop.
I predict that the Government may consider it but that they will not do it. They will not do it because they know that they will create a precedent for the rest of the United


Kingdom and that the costs will go up as more people claim. That is what it is all about. I challenge the Minister to prove that I am wrong. I shall be happy to withdraw what I said if he produces a well-targeted leaflet drop scheme for Northern Ireland.
The increased housing benefit needs allowance for children in Northern Ireland is now to be £1·50 per child from November 1983. The Minister says that it is another significant improvement. What does he mean by "significant improvement"? In Britain, the scheme produces 50p from November, and goes up to £1·50 from April of next year. The Minister is bringing it up to £1·50 from November. People will not get the money in their hands. If people think from the way that the Minister put his case that everyone who has a child or two children or more will get £1·50 per child, they are wrong. They will get only a small percentage of it, depending on where they are on the claimants' scale. Indeed, some people will probably get only a few pounds more, and the Minister knows that. To describe that as significantly better is an insult not only to the intelligence of this House, but to the Members of the Northern Ireland assembly and the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government have introduced a scheme which takes away people's right to manage their own finances, although only a few months ago the Prime Minister talked about the importance of increasing the responsibility of the family and going back to Victorian vanes when everyone managed their own affairs. What do we have now? People cannot pay their own rent because the Minister has introduced a scheme which takes away that choice. The scheme is grossly unfair to many people.
Worse still, the scheme is designed to save money at the expense of the poorer sections of the community. That matters a great deal in Northern Ireland, because people there face increased rates, fuel and other living costs, compared with people in the rest of the United Kingdom. All the evidence shows that in the long run it will not only cut back people's benefits and rights, but increase public expenditure. It is essentially a bureaucratic scheme which has not worked in Britain. As a result, people who have never done so before will get into rent arrears. The Minister has achieved the small advantage of one or two improvements, which I welcome and which we shall ask the House to extend, because such benefits should be availabe here, too. It is nevertheless a sordid and squalid scheme which will not save public money and will hit some of the most vulnerable people in the United Kingdom.

Rev. William McCrea: I am glad to take part in this important debate. This is my first Northern Ireland debate, and at 12.38 it is sad that so many hon. Members are absent from the Chamber.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is a very good attendance.

Rev. William McCrea: If this is a good attendance I would not like to be here on the bad occasions, because it is deplorable that the Benches are so empty, particularly after last night. We are now debating a subject affecting benefits for those at the bottom rung of the ladder in this kingdom. Yet last night the House was alive until 4 o'clock in the morning when Members were discussing

their salaries. So great was the activity here last night that one could have been forgiven for thinking that some great national crisis deserved everyone's great attention.
Whenever the draft Housing Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order was discussed, as the Minister rightly said, there was a great divergence of opinion, not only in the Committee but also in the Assembly. Indeed, the views that were expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) were not the genuine feelings of the majority of the Committee. They were rather an expression of his own views and those of some of his colleagues. However, there was general agreement that the Government had missed a valuable opportunity to introduce a much-needed reform, having learned from the experience of necessary improvements required in the light of similar legislation already operating in Britain for the best part of a year.
The Government's policy of a nil additional net cost basis for the order will result in a scheme in Northern Ireland, and I am sure in the rest of the United Kingdom, which will cause great hardship and difficulty. It was the genuine belief of many Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly that the new scheme and that which is presented to the House tonight will operate with many disadvantages to the recipients.
The Northern Ireland Assembly recommended that
the Government do not introduce its proposed reformed housing benefit scheme in Northern Ireland".
That was the recommendation of the Northern Ireland Assembly, not that which has been suggested by the Minister.
It must be clearly stated that although the Assembly made its request to the Government to leave the path that they were treading, the Committee realised, as did the Assembly, that the then Minister and the present Minister would carry on along their jolly old road and go ahead with the proposals whether the people of Northern Ireland wanted them or not. Bearing that in mind, the Committee and the Assembly realised that they had better make recommendations and they hoped that some of the suggestions that were tabled would overcome the blunders of the Minister's recommendations.
The Government are of the opinion that the proposed scheme is simpler. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not know where he has got that idea from. Many of those that have discussed it in the light of the legislation here have not found it to be simpler and I do not think that it is right that the Minister should make bland statements about the scheme being simpler. Most of the schemes that I have known have baffled even solicitors. It would take solicitors to answer some of the forms that claimants are supposed to answer.
It was said that the order would make matters simpler in that it would take away the choice that has to be made; it would no longer be between the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of Health and Social Services. I have a sneaky suspicion that there is more in the Minister's mind than just a desire to make it simpler. There is, perhaps, another undercurrent. I shall come to that in a moment.
It is said that some benefits can be lost by making the wrong choice. That is true—I would be the first to accept that some benefits can be lost if the wrong choice is made—but I do not feel that the right answer is to adopt the proposed scheme; the choice should still be left in the hands of the claimants.
It was suggested to the Northern Ireland Assembly that the scheme would save about £100,000 on administration, which would be ploughed back into the whole scheme and improve it. It was to be achieved by saving eight jobs. We should be cautious about such promises. Having learned from some of the sad experiences in the past, I know that many intended job losses can turn out to be job gains. Indeed, instead of only £100,000 being saved on administration, the Minister could find that the administrative costs were greater.

Mr. Chris Patten: At what point in my speech did I refer to the administrative costs?

Rev. William McCrea: The Minister must realise that in taking office he is only following the legislation brought forward by the previous Minister. I am referring to the evidence that the previous Minister in a Conservative Government gave to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not think that he was misleading the Assembly. Therefore, if the Minister now wants to sidestep that evidence, and realise that it is best to forget about the £100,000 saving, that is up to the Minister. I would have to refer him to the evidence of the Minister to the people in Northern Ireland —evidence which was presented to the Assembly. The Minister may want to contradict that evidence and to say that it was completely wrong and misled the Assembly. I shall await the Minister's reply. If the Minister wishes to refer to the Official Report of the proceedings of the Assembly Committee, I am sure that will be available to him.
A scheme with nil net cost is one involving no extra money. There will be a resultant redistribution of benefit. That sounds pretty good, but that redistribution of benefit is from the rather poor to the very poor. That will be so if the public expenditure on housing benefit is not increased.
There is a transfer of money from those already deemed, even by this Government, to be poor to those who are deemed to be even poorer. Surely that is not a redistribution of wealth; it is a redistribution of poverty. To me and to my colleagues that kind of policy is obnoxious.
The Department tells us about the gainers from the scheme, but it does not point out properly in its statement that those who are giving—

Mr. Harold McCusker: rose—

Rev. William McCrea: The gainers in the scheme do not point out, as they should, that they are gaining at the expense of people who, according to the Government's own criteria, are in need of help. Surely the Government should heed genuine argument and introduce a "no losers" scheme in Northern Ireland, preferably in the context of a "no losers" scheme in the whole of the United Kingdom.
I was interested in the challenge from the Minister to the hon. Member for Hemmersmith (Mr. Soley). He mentioned £1·9 million. If my memory serves me right, that sum was mentioned by the Minister's predecessor in the Assembly Committee and appeared in the Hansard report of the proceedings.

Mr. Chris Patten: I was objecting to the hon. Gentleman's reference to the percentage of the total cost of the scheme that £1·9 million represented.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the Minister for that clarification.

Mr. Soley: We have been told in the documentation that £1·9 million represents about 3 per cent. of the total annual cost of housing benefits in Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Some people have been told that they will benefit from the scheme. They may find that they are slightly better off, but they may also find that they are disqualified for benefits which turn on the receipt of supplementary benefit. The Minister knows that supplementary benefit is a passport to many other benefits and that the majority of Assembly Members felt that the scheme was designed in part to stop the passport benefit and to restrict, for example, the take-up of the exceptional needs grant. Many will find themselves caught in a poverty trap instead of being better off. They could find themselves worse off in real terms.
Another problem to be faced is the increased number of trained staff of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am an ex-member of the executive and I make no apology for saying that I believe that it is too large. It is too insensitive to the needs of those in public housing and it has little accountability. The sooner that it returns to the proper public life of Northern Ireland, the better it will be for the people. It is now suggested that the giant should be allowed to grow larger with a view to ensuring that it will not be dismantled. I welcome the publicity for the scheme, but I ask the Minister to be more specific about the appropriate steps to be taken
for the purpose of securing that the provisions of the schemes come to the notice of any persons who may be entitled to a rebate or allowance under the schemes".
My colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly suggested that a small but well-targeted leaflet drop should take place in addition to television publicity. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response. That issue was taken up by the hon. Member for Belfast, South and the Assembly Committee was in full agreement.
It is worth noting that, contrary to public opinion and to the view expressed a short while ago by a member of the Northern Ireland Office, the people of Northern Ireland are not over-eager to claim benefits. The member of the Northern Ireland Office said, "You never saw people like them for putting their hands out to get benefits," but the Assembly was told that there was a problem because the people were not taking their benefits. It ill becomes any Minister to cross the sea to Ulster to tell us that he has never met people like the people of Northern Ireland to reach out their hands for benefits. Indeed, someone who is no longer in this place said that they were spongers. I can assure the Minister and the House that, although some in Northern Ireland take more than their rightful benefits, they have no allegiance to the British paymaster or even to the British way of life.
I object to the proposed changes for those in receipt of state benefit. I know of people all over the United Kingdom who have never been unemployed before. They always knew what it was to have a job. But because of circumstances not of their making they now receive state benefit. They have always paid their way. They are


responsible and respectable citizens but under this order they are being regarded as completely irresponsible and unable to look after their own budgeting.
I reject what the Minister said earlier. We are referring to those who use for other things the money that was given to them for housing. I condemn unreservedly anyone who does that, but the vast majority used their benefit for housing and were never in debt to the housing executive. Now that has been taken away from them and they alone are being treated as second-class citizens.
At the moment, such recipients of benefit receive the money for their rent allowance in pounds and pence. I object to the fact that the new system stigmatises all supplementary benefit recipients as untrustworthy in the Department's eyes. I do not believe that this group should be singled out for differential treatment. Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Will the pensioner have the rent taken from his pension before he gets his benefit? Will not the pensioner be allowed to pay his housing costs and have the dignity of so doing? Are we on the edge of a bigger precipice? Many people on supplementary benefit are dignified, honourable citizens of the United Kingdom. If the problem is the debt of £600,000, there is already legislation to take it. That debt is caused not by lack of legislation but by lack of will. I do not believe that, because some people in Northern Ireland are irresponsible, everyone in receipt of state benefit should be branded in this fashion.
There are some concessions and I appreciate the concessions that the Minister has mentioned, but I must agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith that those concessions are minimal. Therefore, my colleague and I will vote against the order.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I was happy to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who signified disagreement with me, arising out of the Minister's comments and those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Until that moment I was a shade worried, because I remembered a verse in scripture:
Woe to you when all men speak well of you.
I was happy to realise that some Members did not see eye to eye with me.

Rev. William McCrea: The majority of the Assembly did not.

Rev. Martin Smyth: A majority of one vote.

Rev. William McCrea: Two votes.

Rev. Martin Smyth: That is a large majority when one considers the absentees.

Rev. William McCrea: That is correct.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I should like to put the record straight, because the Division in the Assembly was to give Members an opportunity to express their minds. That is why several hon. Members who normally sit with the Conservatives will vote against the Government tonight. Of course, that is the principle of democracy and it is why the Assembly is in being—to try to assess the minds of the people — and I suggest that we have done a remarkably good job there, given the limitations imposed upon us.
In that Division we were striking at two aspects. One was whether, as part of the United Kingdom, we wanted

a different style of benefit. The second, and more important, was whether we wanted to continue to allow debts to mount up because people given housing benefit to pay their rents were using that money for other purposes, saying that they did not have enough money on which to live.
Three recommendations of the Assembly Committee were rejected by the Government. The first was that we should not introduce the reformed housing benefit scheme. The majority in the Assembly believed, in the light of the information available, that it was not working in Great Britain and that we were not ready to introduce it in Northern Ireland. In the Assembly, on receiving the Secretary of State's answer, I regretted the Government's decision to turn it down.
The Government turned down the second recommendation, which was that there should be no losers. Reference has been made to the begging bowl mentality. Earlier tonight the House was dealing with equal rights, especially in the context of sex discrimination. I wish to make it plain that the Assembly was not asking for more than we would expect all people in Britain to have. Our recommendation was that the no losers scheme should be introduced in the context of a similar scheme for Great Britain as a whole, but the Government turned that down, apparently because of the cost.
When we in Northern Ireland speak of the better off, we tend to think of those who live in the west end rather than the east end, or the well-to-do, whereas the discussion document uses the term referring simply to poor people who happen, in the Government's opinion, to have a little more than some other poor people. The very use of the term "better-off" is, in our view, a misnomer, and therefore we should have prefered to see the no loser scheme introduced.
The third main recommendation rejected by the Government—I was surprised that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) did not mention it—referred to squatters. Although the Assembly was strong on that recommendation, it was rejected, and it seems that there are many people in public life, and a fair percentage in this House, who are joining the law breakers' protection society and allowing people wilfully to break the law, to jump queues and then to get benefit for doing so. With our experience in the north of Ireland we do not believe that that is a responsible position, even if it is excused as the traditional practice of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which has allowed use and occupation books and thereby allowed people to jump the queue and get houses before others with greater entitlement. There have been instances of people being allocated houses and discovering when they have tried to move in, that the squatters are already there. Instead of using their authority to take the squatters to court, evict them and repossess the house, the Government have allowed the squatters to keep the house. We hold that in any society it is wrong for the state to subsidise the law-breakers. We regret that the Government turned down that recommendation.
When the Assembly received the recommendation from the Secretary of State, we noted which points had been accepted. We appreciate that, in the light of experience in Great Britain, the Government were prepared to make some improvements in the order as it affected Northern Ireland. However, hon. Members representing other constituencies will be happy to know that the extra money involved will not be taken from the budgets for their areas.


It will have to be found from within the general budget set aside for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will not be getting more money than the rest of Great Britain. The Government will simply divide Northern Ireland's cake in a different way.
I was interested in the arguments about savings. The more I examine the question, the more I am convinced that the concept of saving will be only wistful longing. Yesterday I talked to some people involved with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I discovered that they are recruiting staff to deal with the problem. I mentioned that we were to debate the draft housing benefits order tonight. I was asked what I meant. I said that the order was to be debated and would come into operation on a date to be announced. I was told that staff were already being recruited to deal with it.
At one stage we understood that there would be a transfer of staff from the Department of Health and Social Services and that that would result in some savings. However, when we asked how great the saving would be, we were told that eight jobs would be involved. It will be interesting to see what has happened in a year's time. Some of us will not object to people being kept in work or taken off the dole queue. My point is that the scheme will not have the advantages that the Government or their advisers imagined would accrue from it.
In a previous debate, I think that it was the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who described the language of the draft order in glowing terms. It amounted to a lawyer's paradise and was full of gobbledegook. I fear that those who draw up guidance leaflets for the general public are inclined to think that the average John citizen has been to Oxbridge or some other elite educational establishment. In that context, the Assembly was adamant that some effort should be made to provide simplified forms. I have not seen or heard about the form produced tonight by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, and I am not too sure whether the red link signified the area from which it came or the fact that there was a bank overdraft and the housing benefits were needed to help.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument that such forms terrify old people. They will have to depend on civil servants to help them, and that will take up more man or woman power. Those hours could be used for more positive work. Indeed, I press the Minister on how far his advisers have guided him to say nothing more about a leaflet drop. We urged that workers in the health and social services or in the housing executive should do a leaflet drop in those areas where they suspected there should be a higher take-up of housing benefits. The leaflet would be simplified, would set out what housing benefit was, and would encourage people to apply.
Television and newspaper advertisements regularly draw attention to such benefits, but that is not enough because, first, one must see the programme at the right time, and secondly, because I suspect that the average person does not spend his time reading through the public notices. Those are the people whom we need to reach, and that is why we must go the second mile and make people aware of what is available if we are to reach out and serve the community for whom the draft order is designed.
At some stage, reference was made to the appeal position. Without taking up too much time, I should like

to consider that. Is this another quango? Is it providing jobs for those who may be due to retire from a trade union or from some other reputedly moderate body? Is it trying to find jobs for those who would not be elected by the people of Northern Ireland? I am not sure what the Government are after, and I should like a little more clarification.
I should like to press the Minister on the refusal to allow the date of application to be operative, whether the application is first made in the DHSS or in the housing executive. I rely on my experience over the years. The people of Ulster are not much different from the people in any other part of the United Kingdom, or of the world. When they apply to a Government office, they automatically assume that that is the Government. If people apply to a department that has some association with their claim, they cannot understand why it is not dated when it is received, instead of when it reaches the department responsible.
Will the Government think again about their decision not to accede to the Assembly's request? I rest the case at this point.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in rejecting the principle of housing benefits as a separate form of assessment. On the contrary, one of the problems associated with the administration of supplementary benefit has always been that, by its nature, it is unsuited to deal with a need so different in kind from the other needs which are assessed in the administration of supplementary benefit. It is a need the cost of which not only varies irrationally without rhyme or reason from one place to another and from one part of the country to another, but the satisfaction of which is of a particularly rigid character.
The other needs, and the means of meeting them, can be adapted with great flexibility, but there is a characteristic inflexibility in the housing accommodation that a family or a person occupies. That characteristic of this special need calls for distinctive treatment. It has been a correct approach, on both sides of the water, to single out housing need for administration and management in different ways.
Something has been said about the principle of allowing persons who are in receipt of social benefits to have control over the money that is placed in their hands. In general, that is an important principle. I believe that we have to be chary of replacing monetary benefits by real benefits. We have to be chary of that in the context of the pensioner, because, nearly always, the result is that it is a real benefit that one person chooses and another does not, or it is a real benefit that is available for enjoyment by one person but not by another, with resultant inequity between persons whose conditions are essentially the same.
I do not believe, however, that that criticism applies to the housing benefit system in so far as it is separate from the administration of supplementary benefit. I cannot see that where there is a universal need, such as housing, the provision for that need, either with a rebate or the full cost, is a withdrawal of an effective choice from the person to be benefited. There is an essential difference between reducing the cost of a universal item of need and


providing, free of charge or at a concessionary rate, something that some people need and others do not, or that some people choose and others do not.
I believe, therefore, that the principle underlying this scheme, and therefore this order, is right. Normally we are critical when we find that important aspects of legislation are left to be dealt with by regulations. But we are the beneficiaries in this case from the fact that so much of the detail of the scheme will be in the form of regulations. That means not only that it will be much easier for those administering the scheme to adjust it from time to time in the light of experience, but that tonight's debate can be more fruitful than the debates which we usually have upon Orders in Council. Normally when we debate an Order in Council, we know for certain that it will not be altered, whereas most of the points that have been made in the course of this debate from both sides o f the House can be met either at once or subsequently, if the Government decide to meet them, by a modification of the regulations.
Therefore, it is a practical observation to say to the Minister that one hopes that either immediately, or subsequently in the framing of the regulations, the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will be taken into account. The division, as it were, of the legislation between the order and the regulations has given the debate potential and the Government the freedom and flexibility that we do not generally enjoy.
I conclude by inviting the Minister, if he can, to supply two pieces of information for which one's curiosity is excited by the scheme. He referred to take-up and expressed the opinion, with which I agree, that the result of the housing benefits scheme will be that more people will be assisted in this way than under the alternative system, but it would be helpful if his Department had any estimate of the area that is yet to be covered. How far is the estimated 100 per cent. take-up of housing benefit already met under existing arrangements? How far does he think it will be met in the first 12 months of the operation of the scheme? It may be impossible to make an estimate, but at least in such a scheme there is an advantage in placing before oneself a target delineating the total possibilities and forming an initial estimate of the extent to which they can be realised.
On the basis of experience of constituency cases, I believe that many persons, who may be outside the supplementary benefit area, are entitled at present to housing benefits in their present form and will be entitled to them under the scheme. In my constituency there must be hundreds of families who simply are not securing the benefits to which they are already entitled and to which they will be entitled under the scheme. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will pay particular attention to the stress that has been placed both by the assembly and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South upon the problem of enlightening the families and individuals who ought to benefit about the help with which they are now being provided.
My final inquiry relates to the observation made by the Minister in his explanatory letter of 6 July, that the improvements proposed in the tapering scheme compared with the original proposals
will be funded from within existing Northern Ireland resources".

Such a remark prompts an inevitable query. If the money is being added here, from where is it being subtracted? I hope that it is not unfair to inquire from where the resources are being transferred to pay for this temporary alleviation, welcome though it is. The Minister may not have answers to those questions readily available. If not, can an estimate be made and will he supply the answer in the usual way?

Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful for the observations of hon. Members in this interesting, albeit short, debate. The opening speech by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) contained some language which was arguably more suitable for a speech to his general management committee. He spoke about the scheme being squalid and said that he did not welcome it. If it is so bad, I am surprised that he wishes to extend to Great Britain the improvement that the Government have made for Northern Ireland. He seemed to quote what suited him, as has been done before. He did not quote remarks by several members of the Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly. While members of that Committee perfectly properly stated their criticisms of the original proposals, they were prepared to accept that we had made several improvements. I referred to what the Northern Ireland Housing Executive said about the scheme, but the hon. Member for Hammersmith did not. He spoke about complexity, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) in his—I use an adjective of the Prime Minister's—robust contribution to our discussions. Any scheme providing income support for people in varying circumstances must inevitably be detailed if it is to pinpoint need and provide help in an equitable manner. A less detailed scheme would be inadequate.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith thought that the purpose of our reform was to save public money. That seemed a curious observation, and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) alluded to it. I made it clear that the Government would spend extra money on the reform to pay for the improvements which we had discussed. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to specify where the money was coming from. I assure him that money will not be taken away from other schemes to which the Government attach great importance, such as improvement grants which we may be discussing later today, or certainly tomorrow. I hope that the funding will come from money which, from time to time, is underspent in even the best-managed Departments. A sum of £500,000 spread over three years should not be excessive.
Several hon. Members, quite properly, spoke about publicity and asked what steps the Government proposed to take to ensure that the schemes were thoroughly publicised. We accept that they must be thoroughly publicised. Our existing plans cater for those people already receiving assistance as well as for those who may be eligible but who have not yet made a claim. Individual notifications will be sent to all existing recipients of rebates and allowances and to all those receiving supplementary benefit, explaining how they will be affected by the reform. A Province-wide press campaign will take place in the weeks preceding 21 November and there will be a good deal of coverage on radio and television. In addition, officials will be available to


explain the details of the reform scheme to the voluntary bodies which give advice to the public. Seminars will also be arranged for this purpose.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the possibility of a leaflet drop and I am perfectly content to consider that. All existing claimants will, of course, receive information about how the reform will affect them, but I am happy to consider how best to get information to non-claimants, perhaps by issuing a leaflet with rent increase notices. I hope that by such means, complemented by an advertising campaign on radio and television, we shall be able to increase the take-up.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, take-up is estimated at about 80 per cent., so about 20 per cent. —the proportion may be larger; it is always difficult to know exactly—of those entitled to the benefits have not taken them up. I hope that the kind of publicity that we have suggested will help to deal with that. I am certainly happy to consider also the useful suggestion of a leaflet drop.
The main burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and a prominent theme in that of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster was the "no loser" option. As the practice of humility is a Christian virtue, I must confess at once that the hon. Gentleman was right about the 3 per cent. I was thinking of the percentage available under the Great Britain enhancements. I believe that the £1·9 million is about 12 per cent. of that. Having had to spend a good deal of time recently thinking about the comparison between what we were doing in Northern Ireland and the Great Britain enhancements, I am afraid that 3 per cent. was the figure that came to mind.
On the "no loser" option, my task today would have been much easier if I had been able to announce that no existing beneficiary would receive less help under the reformed scheme than he now receives. Unfortunately, the economic facts of life are such that it is not possible to achieve that result, however desirable it may be. Bringing the two separate schemes together in a unified scheme makes it unavoidable that some people will gain and others lose if the books are to be balanced.
I emphasise, however, that the general effect of the reform will be to improve significantly the position of householders at the lowest end of the income scale, including pensioners and claimants with dependent children. The new scheme will therefore be fairer, concentrating help on those likely to be in greatest need of assistance with their housing costs.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred to passporting benefits. The vast majority—more than 97 per cent.—of supplementary claimants will continue to receive supplementary benefit. Their entitlement to single payments and passported benefits will therefore be unaffected. That includes people who will become entitled to a housing benefit supplement.
The remaining 3,000 or so claimants who transfer completely to housing benefit will gain from the reform but lose their automatic entitlement to passported benefits. Many of them, however, will continue to qualify for welfare food, free prescriptions and so forth on age or low income grounds. In addition, as a special transitional measure, claimants with eligible children will retain their right to free school meals and school clothing grants, and

special steps will be taken to notify this group of claimants of the help that will continue to be available to them after the reform is implemented.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster talked a good deal about rebating of rent and rates at source. The principles involved in that were dealt with admirably, clearly and concisely by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that beneficiaries under the existing rebate scheme dislike this method of payment. We are not, after all, talking about the establishment of a new principle. One advantage is that people who are entitled to full rebates do not suffer the inconveniences of having to make periodic payments to the housing executive and the rates offices. It is also a more efficient means of administering the schemes and it limits the scope for the abuse of public money. Any help that the House can give to prevent people getting into arrears should be strongly welcomed.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister give the percentage of people who are getting benefit and are in arrears? Being in arrears has nothing to do with state benefits; some are in arrears although they are wage earners.

Mr. Patten: I could give such an answer if my manual dexterity were greater. I shall do my best to provide the hon. Gentleman with those figures in a letter, if I may. They might be immediately to hand but they cannot be grabbed immediately.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South raised the important matter of squatting which featured prominently in the Assembly's report and in his comments on our response to the Assembly. I share the view of those who condemn that deplorable practice which deprives families, who might have been on a waiting list for a long time, of a home. That is why I welcome the fact that the number of squatters has been reduced by roughly one half since the end of 1980.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Was not that reduction brought about by the introduction of the use and occupation book and, ultimately, by giving squatters a rent book? In other words, was not their success at squatting accepted by the housing executive?

Mr. Patten: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to take further measures to deter squatting. That is one of our early objectives. I assure the House that there will be no slackening in our resolve to deal with squatting as effectively and quickly as is practical.
However, I do not believe that it would be right or productive to deny squatters assistance with their housing costs under the reformed housing benefit schemes. Under the existing system, they can claim a rate rebate or a supplementary benefit housing addition. There is no evidence to suggest that the availability of that help encourages squatting and I have no grounds for believing that withdrawal of that assistance would reduce the incidence of illegal occupation. For those reasons, it is right that squatters on low incomes in Northern Ireland should have access to housing benefits as do their counterparts in Great Britain. Nevertheless, I repeat that it is a deplorable practice that we must do everything to stamp out.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned the appellate machinery. Perhaps I should make clear what the


appeal rights consist of. The claimant will be able to ask for a written statement of how the decision on his claim for housing benefit was reached. If he is dissatisfied it will be open to him to ask the Housing Executive or the Department of the Environment to review that decision. If he remains dissatisfied with that review by officials, he will be able to have his case considered by an independent review board. He will also have the right to attend in person, to be represented by another person or to make representations in writing to the review board. That is a considerable improvement on what happens in Great Britain and I hope that it commends itself to the House. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about his comments to the Assembly on appeal board membership. That need not worry him. I am sure that we shall find willing and informed people to take their places on those committees. The hon. Gentleman said that our proposals would make the scheme more humane than might otherwise have been the case. That is absolutely right, and I hope that the House will agree with the reform and go ahead with the improvements as planned.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 7.

Division No. 37]
[1.40 am


AYES


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Galley, Roy


Blackburn, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Ground, Patrick


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Harvey, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Chope, Christopher
Hawksley, Warren


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, John
Hickmet, Richard


Couchman, James
Holt, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howard, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dover, Denshore
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Favell, Anthony
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Forth, Eric
Hunter, Andrew


Franks, Cecil
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Freeman, Roger
Jones, Robert (W Herts)





King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knowles, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Lang, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Powley, John


Lester, Jim
Raffan, Keith


Lightbown, David
Rathbone, Tim


Lilley, Peter
Rhodes James, Robert


Lord, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


McCusker, Harold
Roe, Mrs Marion


MacGregor, John
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Maginnis, Ken
Rowe, Andrew


Major, John
Ryder, Richard


Malins, Humfrey
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Malone, Gerald
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Maples, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Merchant, Piers
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stern, Michael


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Molyneaux, James
Terlezki, Stefan


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Tony



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholson, J.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Norris, Steven
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Osborn, Sir John



NOES


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Flannery, Martin



Hume, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilfedder, James A.
Rev. Ian Paisley and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Rev. William McCrea.


Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to take the next two motions together.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that, as the limited point which arises on the second order is quite distinct from the matters to be debated on the first, it would be to the greater convenience of the House if they could be taken separately. I do not think that there will be any loss of time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case I shall call only the first motion.

Northern Ireland (Housing)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
The Conservative Government, elected in 1979, were committed to wide-ranging reforms of housing policy, designed principally to encourage home-ownership, give new rights to tenants and liberalise the housing market. Those reforms were carried through for England and Wales in the Housing Act 1980 and in Scotland in legislation the same year.
The Government have, of course, been equally committed to the development of the same policies in Northern Ireland. That was my predecessor's job. He carried it out in his customary fair-minded and conscientious way and was, I know, greatly helped in the task by many hon. Members. I have read the reports of the Northern Ireland Committee debates in June 1981 and February of this year and I thank hon. Members for their help in improving this legislation.
The draft order was also fully debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know how prominent a part in that work was taken by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who, unfortunately, cannot be with us, and by other hon. Members.
The report of the Northern Ireland Assembly approving the proposal, subject to a number of specific amendments, was laid before this House on 16 March 1983. Arising out of the comments and recommendations made in the Northern Ireland Committee, by the Assembly and by 38 other bodies and individuals, a number of substantive changes have been incorporated in the draft order which is now before the House. All those changes have been set out in detail in the Government's response to the assembly's report. Copies of that response have been placed in the Library.
Hon. Members will, I am sure, be interested to know that the Government's response was generally welcomed by the assembly. We have throughout done our best to meet reasonable suggestions put to us.
This is—I state the obvious for those hon. Members who are not wholly familiar with the order—a very long one. There are 108 articles and 12 schedules. I attach particular importance to part II, chapter 1, which provides the right for secure tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to buy their own homes. The housing executive has co-operated fully since 1979 in implementing the Government's policy of enhancing opportunities for home ownership.
I must go further and say that Labour Ministers in Northern Ireland before 1979 were reasonably relaxed about the sale of public sector housing. In terms of Labour party policy, they were to that extent ahead of the game. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will welcome as much as the rest of us the signs of adjustment in Labour policy on the issue. I hope that those shifts will be reflected in his speech, to which we all look forward with great enthusiasm.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Minister tell us when he intends to extend the same right to private tenants?

Mr. Patten: That is not a difficult question, but it raises rather different principles, which I shall be happy to debate. However, I do not think that they are particularly germane to the questions that we are discussing in the order.
The housing executive has been to the fore in encouraging its tenants to purchase their homes. It is only now that housing authorities in Great Britain — this applies by no means to all of them—are beginning to achieve the kind of success rate that the housing executive has enjoyed since 1980.
There is no better justification for a policy of encouraging home ownership among sector tenants than the fact that almost 45,000 housing executive tenants have already expressed an interest in purchasing their homes. I had the great privilege yesterday of handing over to Mrs. Archer of Lurgan—the 15,000th tenant to purchase her home—the keys of her front door. I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate Mrs. Archer and others who have done the same.
The proceeds from the sales have been of major assistance in carrying through the enhanced programmes of new house building and improvement which are so necessary if inroads are to be made into the Province's serious housing problems.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that, whenever a house is sold, someone on the housing list is deprived of the opportunity of getting a house? Does that not mean that the waiting list will get longer, and that no keys will be handed to the people on that list for many years to come?

Mr. Patten: No. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in the debate in February in the Northern Ireland Committee, said:
Perhaps more in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the Kingdom it is untrue to say that the transfer of houses to private ownership represents a loss of housing; often there is a gain in real terms." — [Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 23 February 1983; c. 15.]
If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) knew a little more about the subject, his remarks might be a little more informed.
Given the continuing success of the housing executive's voluntary sales policy, hon. Members may ask why it is necessary to provide in statute a right that tenants seem to enjoy already. There are two reasons.
First, the Government have endeavoured, since they came to office, to provide a national statutory code of rights for public sector tenant. I believe that there is great merit in setting down clearly in law rights for public sector tenants in Northern Ireland similar to those enjoyed elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, there is, of course, the practical reason. Until now the housing executive has preferred, for its own good reasons, to restrict its sales policy to houses. Tenants living in flats and maisonettes do not yet have the opportunity of buying their homes. While I accept that that may have been a necessary restriction if the housing executive were to cope with the initial flood of applications for purchase, and while I acknowledge that sales of flats and maisonettes present more practical difficulties in conveyancing and management than sales of houses, nevertheless, I cannot accept that administrative difficulties should be allowed to override fundamental


rights. Therefore, the draft order will extend the right to buy to all secure tenants of the housing executive, with some specific exceptions which I shall describe later.
Before turning to the detail of the right-to-buy provisions, there is another general po tilt that I should like to clarify. Hon. Members will have noticed that many of the rights extended to public sector tenants by the draft order apply equally to tenants of the housing executive and of registered housing associations.
The major exception is that tenants of registered housing associations will not have the right to buy their homes. The view put to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), by the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations was that the voluntary lousing movement was still at an early stage of development, as it is, and that the extension of the right to buy to its tenants would have a detrimental rather than an advantageous effect. The major fear expressed was that the housing stocks of individual associations would be so seriously depleted as to threaten their viability. We accept that argument, and I am glad to have the fleeting endorsement of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. We agree that registered housing associations should be able to sell their properties to sitting tenants on a voluntary basis. Some sales have already taken place, and a code of practice for voluntry sales is being drawn up by my Department in consultation with the federation.
This policy will enable associations to sell to sitting tenants where they are satisfied that they can do so without damaging their viability or potential for further development. I shall, however, expect housing associations to continue to be willing to sell voluntarily and I shall be monitoring their performance. If it appears to me that associations are being unduly restricive in their attitude to tenants' sales, I shall be prepared to look at the matter again.
In brief, the right to buy under the draft order will operate in much the same way as in England, Wales and Scotland. Article 4 gives a secure tenant of the housing executive an unequivocal right to acquire the fee simple of his house or the leasehold of his flat, provided that he has been a secure tenant of at least three years. The limited exceptions to the right to buy are set out in article 5 and schedule 1.
Articles 8, 9 and 10 deal with the calculation of the purchase price under the right to buy. The purchaser will be entitled to a discount on market value of between 33 per cent. and 50 per cent., depending on the length of tenancy.
I referred earlier to the extent to which tenant sales have until now been financed from private sources and the advantages that this creates. Nevertheless, there may be tenants who wish to buy their homes but are unable to obtain a building society mortgage. Article 13 enables tenants in this position to obtain a mortgage from the housing executive.
Finally, we are also making provision in article 17 for tenants who wish to purchase their homes but find themselves financially unable to do so immediately. The article enables tenants to receive a two-year option on payment of a returnable deposit of £100 to purchase at a valuation determined at the time of the original application.
I firmly believe that the proposals that I have described represent an important advance that will give many more people the opportunity of obtaining a stake in the community.
Part II, chapter II, of the draft order contains a code of rights for public sector tenants. The tenants' charter, as it is commonly known, is a vital complement to the right-to-buy. There will always be those tenants who cannot buy their homes or do not wish to do so. For them this chapter will introduce important new freedoms and responsibilities. They will be able to exercise their own personal preferences in the use of their homes. They will have a new framework of statutory rights and will be entitled to be informed about them and about their other rights and duties under the conditions of their tenancies.
I recognise, of course, that the housing executive and registered housing associations already adopt an enlightened approach to the relationship with their tenants. Many of the rights under the tenants' charter are already available to tenants through existing tenancy agreements. However, I see nothing to be lost and much to be gained in giving statutory force to existing good practice.
Article 25 provides security of tenure for tenants of the housing executive and registered housing associations who occupy the dwellings as their only or principal homes. The exceptions to the provisions are set out in schedule 2 and basically include tenancies that could not be construed as normal lettings. Later in the draft order, article 45 provides that security of tenure applies to tenants who hold their dwellings under a licence which is in all other respects similar to a tenancy, but this will not, of course, extend security of tenure to squatters.
Articles 26 to 29 give a minimum right to one succession to a secure tenant and lay down the procedure for possession of a dwelling let under a secure tenancy. Articles 30 and 31 provide new rights for secure tenants to take in lodgers or, with the landlord's consent, to sublet part of the dwelling. This should help single people.
Articles 34 to 36 give tenants the right to carry out improvements; prohibit rent increases on account of a tenant's own improvements; and provide at the end of the tenancy for the reimbursement of tenants for improvements affecting the value of the house.
Part III of the draft order deals with house renovation grants. The repair and improvement of the existing housing stock is an increasingly important element of our overall strategy to improve housing conditions. Expenditure in Northern Ireland has risen from about £1 million only in 1974 to an estimated £40 million in the current financial year. These grants have enabled owner-occupiers and private landlords to make a significant contribution towards the improvement of inner urban areas in Belfast and provincial towns; but, equally important, they help us with individual substandard dwellings in rural areas, as hon. Members will know.
I realise that there has been concern about the rationing scheme that the executive has had to introduce because the demand for grants has outstripped the considerable increase in the supply of cash. I understand that the board of the housing executive discussed improvement grants yesterday afternoon and that the chairman is writing to me urgently about the position. As soon as I receive the chairman's letter, I shall arrange an early meeting with him. I intend that it should be next week, so that we can review what action needs to be taken.
For convenience, part III replaces in whole the grants provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and subsequent subordinate legislation. Much of the existing grants system remains unchanged. There are one or two changes, to which I should like to refer.
Under articles 63 to 66 special grants are to be introduced for the first time in Northern Ireland towards the cost of providing standard amenities and means of escape from fire in houses in multiple occupation. This new grant will complement the housing executive's revised powers under part IV, chapter I, to deal with overcrowding and means of escape from fire in houses in multiple occupation.
Chapter II of part IV deals with housing associations. Housing associations are making an increasing and indispensable contribution towards tackling the Province's housing problems. Article 76 extends the powers of my Department to grant-aid advisory services for housing associations. The other changes proposed are basically twofold.
First, article 77 ensures that there can be no obstacles in the rules of registered housing associations which might inhibit voluntary sales of dwellings to sitting tenants. This chapter also empowers my Department to pay grant to registered housing associations to improve dwellings for sale.
The second set of provisions in this chapter is intended mainly to strengthen the financial regimes of registered housing associations which will receive this year more than £38 million from the public purse.
I should emphasise that these changes should not be taken as indicative of any widespread malpractice by associations in Northern Ireland. They are preventive measures intended to satisfy Parliament and the public that these independent bodies are fully accountable for the large sums of public money they receive and, indeed, have been welcomed by the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations.
Finally, in this part there are a number of miscellaneous provisions. For instance, article 89 increases the size of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive board from nine to 10. This recognises the heavy work load faced by the board in recent years about which I am sure the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) would be able to inform the House.
I come now to the part of the draft order dealing with the private rented sector. Hon. Members will recall that in March 1981 the Government published a statement setting out the findings and recommendations of the review group which had been established to carry out a review of policy in relation to the private rented sector in the light of the operation of the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The Government's statement identified certain areas where legislative change to achieve minor adjustments and improvements would be appropriate and the majority of the provisions in this part meet the commitment to introduce these changes at the earliest opportunity.
One of the more important conclusions of the review was that further consideration should be given to the question of shorthold tenancies in the private sector in Northern Ireland. The 1981 Act in Great Britain introduced the concept of the shorthold tenancy, and articles 91 to 95 make similar provision for Northern

Ireland. Under these new arrangements, landlords, on obtaining vacant possession of a dwelling previously let under a protected tenancy, will be able to relet the dwelling for fixed terms of between one and five years, at the end of which the landlord will have the right to regain possession. During the terms of letting, tenants will have security of tenure. For the present, these new lettings will be at registered rents, although my Department is given a discretion to remove this provision by order should circumstances warrant it.
By allowing landlords to let in this way, without running the risk of taking on a sitting tenant for life, I believe that we are removing a major disincentive to new lettings. There are many groups of people, such as the young and the mobile, who are not yet seeking long-term security, and these provisions will play their part in meeting that type of housing.

Mr. William Ross: What will be the position of the tenant at the end of the stated tenancy period in relation to the housing executive selection scheme and housing scheme if he applies to the housing executive for housing?

Mr. Patten: I shall endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question later in the debate.
As a corollary to the shorthold provision, articles 103 and 104 are also designed to encourage lettings by facilitating repossession of dwellings let by temporarily absent owner-occupiers, by owners of retirement homes and by service men pending release from the armed forces.
The draft order could affect directly the lives of up to a quarter of a million tenants in the public and private sectors in Northern Ireland. It changes fundamentally the traditional relationship that has existed between landlord and tenant; it raises the status of tenants to a higher level than ever before; and it confers on tenants, particularly in the public sector, the freedom to enjoy their homes in a way best suited to their requirements and ultimately to take the steps towards ownership if they wish. It is a thoroughly sensible and desirable measure, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: Conservative Members always make a great deal of the right-to-buy issue. They believe that it is a factor that helped them in the election, and I have no doubt that it did, but I have always said that winning an election does not necessarily prove that a policy is right. We need time to see how it works out.
The Labour party has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of home ownership. We have one of the best records of any British Government. We introduced the option mortgage scheme, rights for first-time home buyers and many other benefits for people wishing to buy their homes. What is so important about the right to buy? It is that sales in housing stress areas cause problems for tenants and are good neither for local democracy—because the policy is imposed on the local authority, or on the housing executive in this case — and it is bad for those on housing waiting lists. I do not mind what local authorities do in non-housing stress areas—whether they sell, do not sell or whatever—but let us consider the factors which operate in housing stress areas, because they are extremely important.
First, we know from bitter experience that the best properties— those with gardens and so on·go first. That means that, increasingly, people on housing waiting lists cannot get a transfer to a better property, no matter how long they wait. In certain circumstances—I shall define them shortly — it leads to a deterioration in standards of public housing.
Secondly, the policy leads to a decline in the housing stock available in the public sector. When the Minister quoted from the proceedings in Committee upstairs, he left out that vital aspect of the scheme. Unless new build, renovation or repair equals or surpasses the number sold, there must be fewer houses available to let. There is no way in which one can sell off house, build, renovate or repair fewer than have been sold off, and still have more than enough to let to those on the waiting list. If there is no waiting list, there is no problem, but where there is a waiting list, there is a major problem. Shelter in Northern Ireland estimates that the loss could amount to 40,000 homes. That estimate is, of course, based on the Minister's estimate of the number of people who may buy.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: if 40,000 dwellings were sold, how many fewer tenants would need to be housed? Would not that figure be 40,000 too?

Mr. Soley: That would depend in the circumstances. If there is a waiting list, or a transfer list, there would not be 40,000 fewer people whom one had a responsibility to house, or to rehouse in better conditions. One can honestly claim—as hon. Members have rightly done—that there would be 40,000 fewer tenants of the housing executive, but that will not help those on the housing waiting list or waiting for a transfer. It will not help the family with young children who are living in a high-rise block and want a ground floor property.
The other problem which the Government and the Tory party always duck is that local authorities—or, in this case, the housing executive — will have a greater problem of mismatch. There will be aging properties in bad repair and much newer stock with a high annual interest rate, and nothing in between. Those on the waiting list, however, will tend to want two or three-bedroom family houses. As long as the best are sold off first, they will not get what they want.
If this is such a marvellous basic right, why do we not extend it to the private sector? We could leave out the one-off landlord and give a right to buy from any landlord with, let us say, 50 housing units. If the Minister would like to tell me why the right is not extended to the private sector, I shall happily give way to him.

Mr. Chris Patten: It is extraordinary—although it may explain much that has happenec in recent months —that the hon. Gentleman and his party do not seem to understand the difference between private and public ownership. There is a difference, and we on this side of the House understand it.

Mr. John Hume: Nonsense.

Mr. Patten: Despite that urbane contribution, what I say is true. I am surprised that, even after some expensive lessons, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the distinction.

Mr. Soley: If the Minister really believes that there is any significant difference between, for example, renting from Freshwater and renting from a local authority, I

should like him to explain that difference to the tenants. Most people know that there is no essential difference between a large private landlord and a large public landlord.
If I am renting from someone down the road with only one property to let, the situation is indeed different. There is a philosophical point which the Conservative party always ducks. Conservatives believe that in some way large corporate bodies with a lot of capital are in some way better than large public bodies. They are not. They have the same bureaucratic problems as large public bodies, and they have other problems in common. It is nonsense to pretend that there is any significant philosophical difference between the right to buy from a large private landlord and the right to buy from a large public landlord.
The way to extend home ownership is to make grants available to help people to buy at a reasonable rate. The Minister may find it difficult to face arguments that he does not like, but that is not a new experience. If we want to help people to buy, we should make the same assistance available to those who want to live in the public sector and want to buy as is available to those in the private sector. There is nothing wrong with that. The Minister can insist on their being able to buy their own houses in the public sector so long as he offers to replace that property so that housing is available to others who want to rent.
The Government are cutting back overall on renovations, repairs and building, but I accept that things are better in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country. At the same time, the Government are insisting on the right to buy. Therefore, in housing stress areas people have less and less choice, not more choice. As rents have been dramatically increased in Northern Ireland, the difference between renting and buying is minimal. In a sense people are being forced to buy, because it is nonsense for them not to do so. What they pay in rent over a long period is equal to what they would pay if they were purchasing. The reason for that lies in the discounts.
If the Government were genuine in their attempts to help those in rented property—whether in the private or public sector—they would ensure that the subsidies available to them were as good as, and certainly not worse than, those given to purchasers. Hon. Members and the public know that the subsidies to owner-occupiers are way above those given to the people who rent in either the public or private sector. The Government have constantly refused to face that.

Mr. Chris Patten: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we give considerable help to people on group A of the housing executive's list. Thanks to the efforts of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), we give them help to become home owners. Presumably that is precisely the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but perhaps he has not heard of that.

Mr. Soley: Obviously the Minister is not listening. I am saying that the subsidies go to those who buy, but not to those who rent, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sector. It is no good the Minister looking puzzled. If he does not understand, he will have to go away and do his homework. The Minister will not understand my point—right or wrong— if he does not listen. If someone buys his house from the public or private sector,


he receives much greater subsidies from the state in the form of mortgage relief or grants than are given to those who rent. Nobody seriously questions that.
The Government constantly put all the burden on the rent payers—whether public or private—and much less of a burden on those who buy, because of tax subsidies. That is what is wrong. I have no objection to those who purchase receiving subsidies, but I object to the fact that one standard applies to those who buy and another to those who rent. That is fundamentally wrong.
In Northern Ireland in particular, rents have been forced up significantly and many people are being forced into debt for the first time. The Minister knows that debts have been increasing very rapidly because of that increase in rents. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland and the DHSS have issued a draft joint code of guidance on homelessness. I asked the Minister's predecessor the same question as I put to the Minister now. Is it not time that we gave responsibility for the homeless to the housing executive? We do that in the rest of the United Kingdom, but not in Northern Ireland. When Shelter in Northern Ireland pleaded that case and suggested also that the housing executive should be responsible for providing temporary accommodation, it was on to a fair point. At the very least, the Minister should consider it sympathetically.
I deal next with the tenants' charter. I do not see why the rights available to tenants in Northern Ireland should be any less than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Article 40(3) denies consultation with tenants or their representatives on rents. How does the Minister justify that? We should not restrict the matters on which tenants or tenants' groups can have consultations to those which the housing executive believes to be relevant. We should go beyond that.
I believe also that there is a strong case for including a right of repair provision which could be waived by court order only.
There should be protection from summary eviction for tenants in the public sector similar to that enjoyed by private sector tenants.
My final point relates to the Government's attitude to those who have to rent or choose to rent. However one looks at it, the Government seem anxious to punish them and, if necessary, push them into home ownership so as to lose their responsibility for public and private sector tenants.
The Government recently relaxed rent controls in the private sector because they thought that it would enable landlords to do up their properties. There is no evidence that that has happened, and it does not surprise me that there is no evidence. Although the rent increases are significant and heavy for those who are renting, overall they do not bring small landlords much money.
All of us in the House who have studied the background to the Rent Acts and the development of housing since the turn of the century know that the amount of private rented accommodation has been declining steadily since about 1903. It has nothing to do with the Rent Act, as is sometimes claimed by the Conservative party. It has happened because it is uneconomic to rent property, and has been becoming increasingly so for many years. Yet the Government fall back on the old idea that if they allow

landlords to increase rents as much as they like that will result in the property being renovated and repaired and brought up to a higher standard. It will not.
The only way in which the Government will achieve that is by intervening effectively and ensuring that grants are available to landlords to enable them to do up the houses, and, if necessary, the housing executive should have the power and resources to step in to do it in the absense of the landlord or if he, for any reason, is shirking his responsibilities.
The order, in the same way as the original Housing Act 1980, does little to help public or private sector tenants. They are left out because the Government are not and never have been interested in people who choose to rent or find that they have to rent because they cannot afford to buy. Until the Government adopt a housing strategy for Northern Ireland, or the rest of the United Kingdom, which responds to the needs of the people in the public or private rented areas of housing, they will be letting down those people badly. They will be introducing punitive rent levels and causing other problems which they do not impose on those who have the ability and who choose to buy their houses. In the buying sector that choice is being encouraged by large subsidies.

Rev. William McCrea: This draft order is rather lengthy and technical, and I assure the House that I shall endeavour to mention only some aspects of it and allow other hon. Members to cover the rest. The draft order is to be welcomed in many respects. First, public sector tenants in Northern Ireland for the first time are to be given the statutory rights which are available to their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the proposed legislation would embody the right of public sector tenants to purchase their own dwellings in certain circumstances. I have listened to the arguments which have been advanced on that point and the interventions in the Minister's speech. I know that some hon. Members argue that such a policy will dangerously deplete the public housing stock, but it is also correct to say that the finance made available from the sale of such houses has increased the overall housing stock in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is to be welcomed.
I said in the previous debate that I was a member of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I was one of those who campaigned for the right of people to buy their own homes. I was also a member of the Northern Ireland Housing Council, and extreme pressure was put on the Government. If I remember correctly, parties on both sides of the House were happy to yield on the principle of house sales in Northern Ireland. I agree that in many ways it is nonsense not to buy, with the present level of rents in Northern Ireland. Some people try to tell us that rents there are lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is not so. The figures for Scotland have been hidden and are never mentioned, as if Scotland were not part of the United Kingdom. I assure the House that it is, and so are we.
I accept the Minister's statement and the document giving people the right to purchase their own house. I do not believe that the one opportunity that the working man has of gaining a capital asset should be taken from him. Therefore, it is vital to establish that right. I am delighted that it is in the order.
Following representations at the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State revealed that the percentage of Housing Executive tenants excluded from the right to buy under article 5 would be only approximately 10 per cent. He said that even that would be considered in the light of overall United Kingdom policy.
The increase in the net annual valuation limit for repair grants to £225 is to be welcomed. That will be of great benefit to people who own their own houses, and the change will be welcomed in Northern Ireland. The Assembly gave it a warm welcome and I have great pleasure in doing so now. I appreciate the Government's movement on that matter.
I draw the House's attention to article 12. I welcome the provision under which the tenant would have the right to have the value of his house redetermined, but I feel that that should not be done by the valuer or one of his colleagues. If a house is to be revalued that should be done by an independent body. That was drawn to the Minister's attention by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am led to believe that the Secretary of State also mentioned to the Assembly that he and the Minister will consider the matter in the light of experience if the present system is not working. I appreciate that consideration.
I also appreciate the change recommended in article 67(2)(a) on the repair grant. Again the Secretary of State informed the Assembly that the Department would alter the cut-off date for eligibility for repair grants from 28 February 1946 to 31 December 1956. The view of the Assembly's Environment Committee, and that of the Assembly, was that the 1946 date excluded a great number of houses which could be of suspect quality as they were constructed in the year after the war. I am pleased that the order that was presented to the House has taken that representation into account. Indeed, 31 December 1956 is the actual date stated in the order.
Of the 28 recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Assembly's Environment Committee, 16 were accepted by the Government. I appreciate that movement. Now that the draft order has been substantially improved, I should be deeply indebted to the Minister if he would move on the remaining 12. The legislation would then be most enlightened and perhaps a model to be followed throughout the United Kingdom.
I express my thanks to the Minister for the concern that he has shown about the delay in grant is being paid owing to lack of finance. I am delighted that the Minister and the chairman of the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are to have an urgent meeting. I trust that the position will improve in the near future and that the problem will be alleviated in the best interest of all concerned.
Although we have not got all that we asked for, it would be wrong not to say that the Government have moved quite a distance with the legislation. I trust that the Minister will consider further the points still outstanding.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This substantial order is in itself a housing code. Indeed, it is several housing codes in one, as each of the main chapters is a code in its own right.
This is the moment to say a word of appreciation to the captive audience at this debate, whose appearance of somnolence belies, I am sure, the great attentiveness with

which they are following the speeches. I hope that the captive audience understands the importance function that it is called upon to perform.
That function will be performed the more speedily and efficiently as the Whips contrive a shift system whereby the entire Conservative party, after a certain lapse of time, has the privilege of attending these debates. They are to convert the Conservative party to the conviction that Northern Ireland should enjoy the privilege available to the rest of the United Kingdom of being legislated for in Great Britain or United Kingdom Acts. With one exception, the codes enacted in the order are identical with those already enacted for England and Wales and, I believe, for the northern kingdom as well.
The peculiar desire of successive Administrations, not excepting the present one, to maintain Northern Ireland in a state of artificial legislative isolation has meant that we have not had a debate in which all hon. Members could participate and in which these matters could be settled for the country as a whole. As the Minister pointed out, and as has been recognised, considerable work has been done on these proposals at earlier stages. Two sittings of the Northern Ireland Committee have been devoted to them and traces of what was argued in that Committee and agreed to by Ministers on those occasions are to be found in the order.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has already mentioned one of the two major improvements to which I intended to refer — the extension of eligibility for repair grants to houses built before 1956, instead of 1946 as heretofore. I remember the debate on that in the Northern Ireland Committee and the agreement that was secured from the Minister on that occasion.
I refer with particular satisfaction to the extension of the right to buy to dwellings designed for occupation by physically disabled persons. This is my opportunity to try to alleviate the anxieties of the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) by assuring them, from direct personal experience as a Northern Ireland Member, that it is extremely rare for houses sold to sitting tenants to be in any natural sense of the term removed from the total housing stock available to the housing authority. It is perhaps difficult to convey to Members representing constituencies in other parts of the kingdom the passion, nay the ferocity, of the desire of the people of Northern Ireland to own their own homes.
The homes that are bought by sitting tenants are homes which in no circumstances and in no foreseeable future would have fallen back into the mobile pool available to the housing executive. They are houses in which-a family has lived and been brought up and in which another family and perhaps even a successive family will live and be brought up. The house will remain in continuous occupation in that way, the only difference being that as a result of exercising the facility, later to become the right to purchase, that house will be the possession of that family and not merely tenanted. The availability of housing stock is not in the least impaired thereby.
I assure the hon. Member for Hillsborough that I attach great importance to flexibility in the transfer of families from less to more suitable accommodation by the housing executive. I have stressed this in previous debates and said that I believe the Housing Executive should pay more attention to that, so I, at any rate, cannot be accused of


being insensitive to the desirability of having available a pool of tenancies frequently or at least occasionally falling in, so as to allow for the matcing of family size and needs to accommodation. I must tell the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Hillsborough, however, that those are not the houses involved in the context of sales to tenants.
The extension of the right to purchase to houses that have been adapted for occupation by disabled persons is a particularly striking instance of the case that I am making. It is a remarkable fact, but it is none the less a fact, that the people occupying houses, in some cases very elaborately improved and modified to suit the needs of one or more disabled occupants, are extremely anxious that those houses should become their possessions.
Indeed, I know of cases where, because the modifications available through the advice of health and social service authorities and the work of the housing executive did not fully meet the ambitions and wishes of a particular family, the family purchases the house first so that the modifications needed to adapt it for occupation by handicapped people could be carried out afterwards. I assure the House that it is not merely common, but normal, for there to be an expectation that houses that have been adapted for families containing one or more handicapped person should pass into the ownership of those families.

Mr. Soley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Although there is considerable stability in the special houses to which he is referring and in the general population, there is no way in which, especially under the numbers about which the Minister is talking, a significant number of houses will not be lost in time. What happens to a house when the occupant dies? the house is left to someone else in the family and sold. The right hon. Gentleman faces an acid choice. Does he prefer to sell the house at a maximum discount of 50 per cent., in which case the house never returns to the housing executive, or does he prefer the tenant to be offered up to 50 per cent. of a house of similar value on the private market, in which case the house would return to the housing executive and another of his constituents could be housed?

Mr. Powell: I have further consolation for the hon. Gentleman. The latter process is what is happening under our noses, in one of the principal towns in my constituency —Downpatrick. There is a steady movement out of the housing execuive estate into a neighbouring private enterprise estate, thus creating and maintaining the very flexibility which the hon. Gentleman and I desire.
The hon. Gentleman referred to houses which eventually fall back into the pool following the death of the tenant. It would be interesting to have a statistical survey on that mattter. It would be a useful exercise for the housing executive to carry out. I believe that the houses that fall vacant because of the death of the occupier are usually those which are still tenanted. Moreover, they are usually those which are occupied by elderly individuals or couples. When such a house is acquired, it is and will continue to be a family house of which the date of falling in would be remote.
I am afraid that, between us, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and I have somewhat over-laboured that point, but it is extremely important. In Northern Ireland, one sees home ownership in an especially intense and

beneficent form. Perhaps, therefore I have not entirely wasted the time of the House by placing that emphasis on it.
I want to deal exclusively with that part of the code which deals with grants for repairs and improvements, because there has been changes in circumstances in this respect since the order was last considered. That change in circumstances has been unfortunate, though not unprecedented. Some of us remember the consequences for the scheme for the improvement of rural cottages of a sudden imposition of a £50 million cut in the housing executive's budget two years ago. Expectations and undertakings that hon. Members had given their constituencies were defeated and delays were interposed which are only now being caught up.
This is not the first time that we have experienced what we are experiencing this year—the sudden cessation, the sudden seizing up of that process of grant-aided repairs and improvements, money for which the Minister pointed out had so dramatically increased from £1 million to £40 million per annum. I hope that the Minister will not take refuge in saying that we should be satisfied with so dramatic an acceleration and not be surprised if, with the peristent demand, a brake had to be applied.
The code provides a duty that is reciprocal to a right. The key sentence from article 49 is:
Grants shall be payable by the Executive in accordance with this Part.
The order holds to the people of Northern Ireland a right to improvement and repair grants. However, the right is qualified by conditions. Article 50 states:
No grant shall be paid by the Executive unless an application is made to it in accordance with this Part.
The "may" appears in some cases.
Article 50(5) states:
The Executive may pay a grant to any person in whom the estate in a house of an applicant for a grant becomes vested by assignment.
The wording of subsection (8) of the article, which states that
the Executive may not entertain an application for a grant if the relevant works
is curious and rather ambiguous. I can understand the statement, "The Executive may", as an alternative to "The Executive shall", there being an option in the former case and an obligation in the latter. I do not understand the relationship between
no grant shall be paid by the Executive
and
The Executive may not entertain an application for a grant.
The expression "entertaining an application" brings me to a matter that has caused great bitterness in my constituency. When the brake was put on a few weeks ago and the finance was suddenly tightened, initially demand was equated with supply by lengthening the process of approving the applications. Without explanation, applicants had to wait for months for their grants, which they had the greatest reason to expect would be forthcoming, only to be told eventually, after an inquiry was made on their behalf, that there had been a change in the financial background.
We are now informed that a system of priorities has been established and set out in documents issued by the housing executive. With the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, I was relieved to learn what the Minister said about his transactions with the chairman of the housing executive and the urgency that he attached to putting this matter on a rational and explicable footing. At present we are


defeating a right that has been created, destroying legitimately entertained expectations, and creating massive between tenants and house occupiers and the housing executive.
There must have been lack of foresight or a sudden change imposed upon the housing executive by the Treasury to account for the sudden application of the brake which occurred when the expansion of applications for improvement and repair were in full flight. However, it happened, and the consequences must he dealt with rationally. The House should be told as soon as possible about the modification that has been introduced into the availability of capital for this purpose. What was the estimated capital for the current financial year, and what is the revised estimate for the current financial year? What shortfall will result from the possibility of giving grants? How are the applicants to be marshalled in the queue which will inevitably form? I hope that it is the Minister's intention, in his transactions with the housing executive, to secure that information and make it public as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend and I must warn the Government of the severe disappointment—almost disaffection—which the sudden change that is observable is creating. If we are to avoid a long backlog, contracts being frustrated, and plans broken up, there must be rationalisation at the earliest possible moment of the consequences of whatever has unfortunately occurred to interfere with the remarkable course of the improvement and repair of the Northern Ireland housing stock.
On that more cheerful note, I conclude by saying—

Mr. William Ross: Will my right hon. Fried reflect on the fact that the number of houses that need major improvement is known and that it world be possible to have them all completed quickly if the grants were made available? Thus, over a short period, the need for such grants would greatly diminish, if not disappear entirely.

Mr. Powell: I follow my hon. Friend's argument, but I am not entirely sure that I agree with it. My impression is that in this matter, and very happily, the appetite comes with eating. The observation of the possibilities of improvement and the feeling that deficiencies can be removed represent a progressive and continuing process. I do not think that we shall soon exhaust the reservoir of improvable, recoverable and repairable houses in Northern Ireland. I stress that, because over the past five years in Northern Ireland the emphasis has tilted from the creation of new houses to the maintenance of the existing stock, and I believe that that tilt will go further. That makes it all the more important that the progress that has been maintained in improvement and repair should be interrupted as little as possible and that its future course should be as rational as may be.
Those who visit Northern Ireland are commonly astonished, above everything else, at the excellence of the houses, particularly in country districts. They are struck not only by the number and quality of the new houses but by the older houses which have been rehabilitated and improved. That is one of the hopeful aspects of the Ulster scene, and I am sure that the Government will therefore readily understand the sensitiveness and anxiety that have been expressed in this debate.

Mr. William Ross: The first sentence of article 5 says:
The right to buy does not arise unless the Executive is the fee simple owner of the dwelling-house.
The next few sentences set out all the circumstances in which the right to buy does not arise.
At first sight, that seems to be simply a bar on the sale of a privately owned house, and it may well act in that way. However, I wonder what will happen in the unfortunately not too rare circumstances where the deeds of a dwelling cannot be found and there is a long delay in establishing title by the housing executive to a house which is plainly in its ownership.
I am sure that the Minister will already have come across a number of cases of undue delay because rural cottages have been built in the wrong corner of a field, on land not purchased for that at all. I hope to have an assurance that the sentence that I quoted will not be used to slow up or act as a bar to the sale of any house, because it could be so used. Certainly those who take an interest in this matter would be very annoyed if that were the case.
There are a vast number of points in the order which I should like to discuss and which have already been discussed in many other places. As the hour is moving on, for the second night in succession, I shall try to restrict my remarks to one or two things that are troubling me a little.
Article 17 says that
the Executive shall be bound, subject to the foLowing provisions … to make to the tenant—
(a) if the dwelling-house is a house, a grant of the dwelling-house for an estate in fee simple".
In English terms, that is freehold. I understand that hitherto or at least until lately it was the case that it was an estate in fee simple. But I have been told — I am curious whether it is true — that the present sale document being prepared for the housing executive is not a grant of the estate in fee simple but is a 999-year lease. If that is so, can we have an assurance that is written here will be the course followed and can we be told why there has been a change from the freehold system to the long-term leasehold system?
I have recently come across a case in which the housing executive, in selling a dwelling, sold the right of way to a house next door and has not been able to get it back. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is also aware of that strange case of ineptness on behalf of the sales managers. It was a mistake, but, as the individual bought his dwelling freehold, the housing executive is in severe difficulty. Perhaps the Minister can clear up that point for me.
Article 50 deals with a reassessment two years after the previous application for grant was approved. That disappeared in 1978 and has had to be reintroduced. We pressed for it early on and I am pleased to see that it has come back. I hope that the order will come into operation as soon as possible so that the constituents who have suffered will now be able to resolve problems caused by rising costs.
The one difficulty that I see now lies in the fact that inflation seems for the moment to have run its course. If it does not continue at the high levels which persisted in earlier years, there will be less need for the improvement in article 50.
One could say a great deal more on the order, but enough has been said, I hope, to give the Minister room


for reply. I hope that we shall shortly return to the housing problems of Northern Ireland because many things need to be said and done.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs took a great deal of evidence on dampness in houses in Scotland. I hope that it will be required reading for the officials of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive who have to deal with damp housing. There is much interesting information in it and the sooner the officials read it the better. I hope that in future there will be an absolute ban on the installation of flat roofs, the one cause above all others of dampness and condensation in houses. It has led to endless problems for tenants and endless frustrations for their representatives.

Mr. Chris Patten: I shall refer the commendation of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) of the Scottish Affairs Committee's document on dampness—a subject with which I am perhaps not as familiar as I should be — to the officers of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
There were some Neanderthal views on housing policy from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) which, I trust, do not reflect the policy of the Labour party. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to understand the distinction between what is privately owned and what is a public asset.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made the reasonable point that for many working men the only chance of acquiring a capital asset is through the purchase of their home.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argued cogently about the particular problems in Northern Ireland and the effect of the sale of housing executive property on the housing market.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will not be too scandalised if I tell him that no housing policy will be pursued more vigorously in Northern Ireland than the encouragement of home ownership.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the sale of housing executive property. He should recognise that, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, the sale of a public sector house to a tenant does not remove it from the total housing stock. The hon. Gentleman should be prepared to recognise that the potential loss of a relet does not arise in the short term, since the tenant, were he not given the right to buy, would continue to live in the house as a tenant. It is worth mentioning that in recent years, when the Government's house sales policy has been in operation, the housing executive's waiting list has been falling. The advantages in social and economic terms of permitting tenants to buy their homes, and of encouraging the spread of home ownership, far outweigh the theoretical disadvantages to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Soley: The waiting list has been falling because for many years, as the Minister knows, there was no good policy of house building, renovation and repair in Northern Ireland. It was not until direct rule was introduced—[Interruption.] It was not until direct rule was introduced—Official Unionist Members may not like it, but it is true—that there was a major effort to expand building. We all know that in areas where sales have taken place the housing waiting list has increased.

Mr. Patten: I detect a difference of view on that matter between the hon. Gentleman and some Official Unionist Members. I fancy that the major reason for the difference between the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members is that the Official Unionist Members know rather more about Northern Ireland than he does.

Mr. Flannery: They made a mess of governing Northern Ireland from Stormont.

Rev. William McCrea: rose—

Mr. Patten: We welcome with scarcely disguised enthusiasm the return to our councils of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), but I think that we would be able to get through them more rapidly if he were a bit quieter.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith talked about homelessness. I know that Shelter in Northern Ireland has put pressure on the Department to introduce provisions in the draft order similar to those that are contained in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. We considered that proposal but rejected it because in practice we do not believe that that legislation would confer any greater protection on the homeless than is already provided by the housing executive's selection scheme, under which homeless applicants receive priority. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is a regional housing authority, and that makes a difference.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith discussed consultation in the context of article 40 of the draft order. I do not believe that rents or service charges are suitable matters for consultation arrangements under the article. The executive and registered housing associations must raise sufficient rental income to make an appropriate contribution towards meeting their revenue expenditures. The provisions in the draft order mirror those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom under both the Housing Act 1980 and the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is familiar.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster welcomed a number of the proposals in the draft order. He said that he wished that we had accepted the other 12 recommendations made by the Northern Ireland assembly. The reasons for not accepting those recommendations, which are fully set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his response to the assembly, are available in the Library.
The right hon. Member for Down, South, apart from his interesting remarks about the effect of the sale of housing executive homes on the rest of the housing market in Northern Ireland, spoke primarily of improvement grants, to which he refered during the debate on the Appropriation Order two weeks ago. I can only repeat that, as a result of the board's meeting yesterday, I am expecting a letter from the chairman. I shall respond to the letter straightaway and suggest a meeting next week at which we can go into these issues, which put in question the objectives of our housing strategy in Northern Ireland, the best way of securing the objectives and the precise balance to strike between new build and improvements and repairs. That is a fundamental matter that I look forward with the executive.
It is only fair to my distinguished predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), to stress that provision for improvement grants


agreed between my hon. Friend and the executive during last winter's public expenditure discussions was £40 million. That was the amount allocated to the executive for the present financial year.
The right hon. Gentleman's points on resources and policy will form the agenda for my discussions with the chairman and senior officers of the housing executive.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked about a tenant who seeks housing executive accommodation when his shorthold tenancy comes to an end. At that time I was not able to respond as accurately as I should have done. The information is now to hand. Such a person would be entitled to apply to the housing executive for accommodation and his application would be dealt with by the executive under its statutory housing selection scheme.

Mr. William Ross: Would it be dealt with as a priority case or as a normal application?

Mr. Patten: Perhaps I can let the hon. Gentleman know the precise answer to that question later as that information is not immediately to hand. I fear the answer was not as satisfactory as both of us would have liked.
The hon. Gentleman referred to title difficulties in house sales. I am aware that the housing executive faces difficulties in establishing title to some of the dwellings that it inherited from 65 housing authorities. However, I am happy to say that the delays caused by these difficulties have been substantially reduced through the procedures available through the Land Registry. I am also happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought that article 5 is not intended to avoid the right to buy in cases of title difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned completions under article 17. The executive has until now preferred to dispose of houses on a leasehold basis, even where it holds the freehold interest. The right-to-buy provides for the sale of the freehold, and the executive will consider bringing it voluntarily into line.
I hope that I have dealt with the substantive points that were raised in the debate. If I have not done so in my reply, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that I will take up any outstanding queries in correspondence at the earliest possible moment.
I hope that the House will approve the order, which I think will do a great deal to help those who wish to become home owners and those who wish to be tenants.
I commend the order to the House.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Housing) (Amendments)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
This order makes amendments to the Housing Act 1980 in consequence of article 87 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order which provides the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with a power to enter into indemnity agreements with building societies.
Section 3(8) of the Housing Act 1980 provides for the exclusion of certain recommendations made to building societies from the scope of section 16(3) and (5) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. This order amends section 3(8) to extend the exception to cover recommendations about indeminity agreements made by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with the consent of my Department.
This order is to be made under section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which enables the law of any part of the United Kingdom to be amended in consequence of any provisions of Norther Ireland legislative measures.
I commend the order to the House.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order earlier I undertook that I would raise only one point, and that briefly, on this order. Nevertheless, it is a point of constitutional and practical importance.
If hon. Members from other parts of the kingdom had happened to look at the order they would have been surprised not only that it was amending a United Kingdom statute to fit a Northern Ireland order, but that it was introducing into a United Kingdom statute, parallel with the words "Secretary of State", the term
the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland".
Going no further and knowing no more, such hon. Members might have felt some offence and astonishment to see a Department treated as if it was a Minister.
The explanation is that we in Northern Ireland live under what we call direct rule. It is a state of affairs which is described as interim and is prolonged from year to year by an order which is annually made in June or July. We greatly resent this condition in which we are kept and we believe that the uncertainty and provisional character which it implies for our constitutional arrangements is itself a source of encouragement to the enemies of our Province.
When that annual order renews the Prevention of Terrorism (Interim Provisions) Act 1974 it renews a provision which says that wherever one reads the word "Department", it really means "Minister responsible for the Department". Thus, tonight at 3·22 am we are writing into a statute of the United Kingdom words which do not mean what they say but which mean what, by virtue of an annual renewal order, a temporary provisions Act says they mean.
We do not do it only on that occasion. We constantly provide for an order to be subject to affirmative or negative procedure when that is not true. The expression "subject


to affirmative procedure" is to be read to mean "subject to negative procedure"; and the expression "subject to negative procedure" is to be read as "subject to no parliamentary procedure at all" by virtue of the 1974 Act as annually renewed by the renewal of direct rule each year.
Such is the violence which is done to the statute book of the United Kingdom, as well as to all common sense and constitutional propriety, by the deliberate process of maintaining Northern Ireland on a 12-month lease, so to speak, whereby, in contrast with the rest of the United Kingdom, our arrangements are accorded only from year to year.
Those who sit on this Bench have come—it is a word commonly used nowadays— mandated by those who sent us here in such agreeably large numbers. It was with a mandate to put an end, so far as in us lay, to direct rule, and it is for that purpose that from time to time we trespass on the patience of our fellow Members of this House by drawing attention to the anomalies, absurdities and intolerable consequences of the unique form of government which is maintained in Northern Ireland and which we refer to as direct rule.
The early hours of the morning may not be suitable, from some points of view, for constitutional disquisitions, but for another reason they are highly suitable. It is this arrangement—it is the determination to treat Northern Ireland as something temporarily and specially dealt with — which creates the necessity for hon. Members, instead of dispatching the legislative business of the kingdom in the normal and proper way at normal times, to attend these seminars that we conduct for them with the assistance of Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office. That observation enables me to resume my seat on the agreeable note of thanking the Under-Secretary of State for the competence as well as the bonhomie of his contributions to our debate.

Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I must attempt to respond in kind, although rather more briefly. It would be injudicious, and would require more courage than I can summon up without a little Dutch assistance, for me to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the arcana of the legislative process. Once again, he made his argument with eloquence and clarity. I find it difficult to believe that those who bomb, maim and murder are encouraged to bomb, murder and maim by our constitutional arguments and discussions, but that must be a difference of opinion between us. Tonight it would be foolhardy of me to do other than take the world as it is. In the right hon. Gentleman's view, our legislative processes are imperfect. The solution, in the Government's view—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, although he does not agree with us—is to dispense with the need for them by achieving a workable scheme of devolution. On that happy note—on which I assume that there will not be total consensus —I shall resume my seat.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Brynlliw Colliery

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I welcome this opportunity to inform the House about a vital matter that affects my constituents. On 14 June this year, the National Coal Board's south Wales area director announced to the NCB his recommendation that Brynlliw colliery be closed. Brynlliw is a colliery that I know well. I feel a strong empathy with the men who work there. It is my firm belief that the recommendation by Mr. Philip Weekes is premature as a decision and insensitive to the full implications of closure.
First, let us consider the potential of the colliery. On 21 March 1983 a joint investigation team was established which included representatives of management, unions and employees. It made an in-depth study of the mine, and the report was submitted for discussion on 3 May 1983. The conclusions in the report did not point to a bleak future. Indeed, the opposite was true. Fifteen positive recommendations were made, including the urgent need to develop the S31 coalface. Some of those recommendations have now been implemented, but the key question remains: how much investment has the National Coal Board made, apart from normal development? For example, what capital has been injected into a new haulage system for the main laterals in the 6 ft seam?
The NCB cannot sustain the view that Brynlliw's coal reserves are exhausted. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the total workable coal reserves at Brynlliw amount to at least 4 million tones— 1–9 million tonnes in the 3 ft seam and 2–1 million tonnes in the 6 ft seam. Tapping those reserves does not require a major expenditure programme. In the 3 ft seam, two short headings of 1 ft each would lead directly into the seam. In the 6 ft seam, only headings are needed, as there is no area of barren ground to work through.
There is also a ready market for Brynlliw coal at the Aberthaw B power station. Indeed, that market has already been supplied successfully. For example, 191,500 tonnes of Brynlliw coal were burned at Aberthaw in 1979. In 1981, the figure was 126,000 tonnes. The existence of that market was confirmed on 12 April 1983, at a meeting at the headquarters of the Central Electricity Generating Board in London. Sir Walter Marshall, the CEGB chairman, gave me his assurance that every tonne of Brynlliw coal could be burned at Aberthaw. Thus, in view of the investigation team's report, the known availability of reserves, and the assured market, I conclude that prematurity of recommendation is a reasonable charge that can be levelled at the NCB's south Wales area director.
Secondly, my case rests on the insensitivity of the south Wales area director to the full implications of closure. The NCB states that 638 men will be found other jobs. However, if 638 jobs are available in other collieries in the area—which would be good news indeed—why have they not been advertised to date? The truth is that 638 jobs are not available in the surrounding pits. Men in other pits will be retired early, as will some of the men at present employed at Brynlliw.
The closure of Brynlliw will mean hundreds of lost job opportunities in a county that has experienced the fastest


rise in long-term unemployment of any county in Wales. Yet, on 22 January 1981, the Secretary of State for Wales, in a Welsh affairs debate, said:
However, I believe that the NCB will find opportunity for additional investment to strengthen the position of many pits in Wales and to increase job opportunities within them." —[Official Report, 22 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 448.]
Those words now seem to have a very hollow ring to them.
There are other implications, but I shall confine myself to the contribution of deep-mined relative to opencast-mined coal in Wales.
If Brynlliw colliery closes, the question of where the replacement capacity is to be found must be posed. The Royal Commission on energy and the environment argued powerfully that opencast operations should not exceed 15 million tonnes per annum.
The Government eventually — I emphasise "eventually"—responded on 22 May this year to the Royal Commission's report of July 1981. Page 25, paragraph 74, of the Government's response shows a difference in attitude between the Royal Commission and the Government, because the Government do not accept that the ceiling of 15 million tonnes should in any way be sacrosant.
I believe that opencast coal sites remain classic examples of the misallocation of resources whereby the people living near to them are not compensated fully for the ravaging of their environment and the intrusion into their lives of noise, dust and vibration. Often a whole generation has to endure the unintentional, negative side effects of such developments.
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), the Department of Energy, in its folly, has said that the excavation area to be authorised at Glyn Teg should not approach a line nearer than 82 yards from the nearest occupied dwelling. What a concession!
If the Government give a free hand to the National Coal Board to substitute opencast for deep-mined coal without paying full compensation for loss of amenities to people living near those sites, they are engaged in a socially reprehensible policy.
I have sought to show that the closure of Brynlliw colliery is unnecessary, and that, if catried through, it will inflict another serious blow to the prospect of more job opportunities in Wales, while imposing more opencast operations on the lives of many more people.
On 17 February 1981, the then Secretary of State for Energy said:
The Government will view with sympathy the social problems brought about by redundancies."—[Official Report, 17 February 1981; Vol. 999, c. 142.]
The people of Gower and Wales know only too well that sympathy will not protect their living standards. I hope that the Minister will offer the miners of Brynlliw more than sentiment this evening.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on raising this issue, which is of such importance to his constituents. We are well aware of his assiduity in looking after constituency matters and raising them in the House. I feel certain that what he has said tonight will form an important part of the discussions about Brynlliw colliery.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision, if it is confirmed after appeal—and the appeal is pending—on the colliery's future is taken in the context of what the National Coal Board views as the problems in o the area involved. It is an individual and a special matter, but the context in which the decisions are set is important. I remind the House that just over a week ago I brought before the House the draft Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order 1983. It set out the facts fairly starkly on the National Coal Board's current financial position. I make no apologies for referring to that matter again, because despite the increasing levels of productivity and the huge investment of the past 10 years, the industry's finances continue to deteriorate.
In 1979–80 the board's loss before payment of deficit grant was £159 million. In 1980–81 the figure was £207 million, in 1981–82, £428 million, and in 1982–83 the figure had risen to about £485 million. The signs are that the 1983–84 loss before deficit grant could be not far short of £600 million. Those are the bare facts of the industry's global problem. I accept that it is not the precise problem of the location to which we are referring, but that is the global argument.
The cause of those increasing losses is than the board is producing more coal than it can sell, a portion at very heavy losses. As the board itself has said, 10 million tonnes of its deep-mined capacity gives rise to a net loss on revenue account of about £400 million a year, both in direct operating losses and in further losses that arise in disposing of or stocking the surplus production. That £400 million loss is not the fault of the managers and men involved. It arises largely from the geological conditions at the pits concerned. With more and more fine new capacity coming on stream, it no longer makes sense for men to scratch around at those pits, often in very poor working environments. As the report of the Select Committee on Energy pointed out last December, as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission stated in its report, and as the Government's published objectives for the chairman of the board state, action to bring production into line with that demand which can be met profitably is now imperative.
In this context I think that it will help the House if I describe in detail the actions which I understand the board has taken over Brynlliw colliery, which lies in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman, is 78 years old, and currently employs about 640 men. My purpose is to show that the board has taken every opportunity to keep Brynlliw going in the hope that the situation would improve. If, following the forthcoming appeal, the board concludes that there is really no hope left, that will not be in any way an arbitrary or lightly considered decision. It will follow from discussions that have spread over many years, as the hon. Gentleman made clear.
The losses at Brynlliw are accelerating. In 1978–79 it was part of the Brynlliw—Morlais combined mine, which lost just under £10 per tonne of coal produced. The losses of the combined mine rose to nearly £16 per tonne in 1979–80, and over £27 per tonne in 1980–81. In May 1982 the Morlais section was closed, by local agreement with the unions, and in 1981–82 the losses fell to just under £20 per tonne. But even that modest improvement did not, unfortunately, last. In 1982–83 Brynlliw produced 122,000 tonnes of coal, only just over half the previous years' total. Output per manshift was 0·92 tonnes, well down on the previous year and not much over one third of


the national average of 2·44 tonnes. The financial loss was £6·8 million, nearly £56 per tonne of coal produced and over £10,000 for every man on the colliery books. The cumulative loss in the period 1979–80 to 1982–83 was no less than £22 million—money which could have been used more effectively in developing new capacity. Were operations to continue through 1983–84, the NCB would expect a further loss of at least £7 million.
The hon. Gentleman raised two questions about investment. The first was transportation on the new haulage systems in the 6ft seam. That is an extremely technical matter, but I am assured by the board that it has considered it carefully and discussed it with the unions. It was fully taken into account by the area director when he made his decision on the pit. It was not ignored in the board's assessment.
These losses, too, contribute to a deteriorating position within the board's south Wales area as a whole. The operating loss in south Wales was £69 million in 1980–81 and £96 million in 1981–82—some 40 per cent. of the board's total operating loss on deep-mined coal. I understand that the 1982–83 accounts of the board, to be published next week, will show the south Wales loss higher still, and a similar proportion of the national loss.
Despite that position, the NCB has maintained new investment in south Wales at about £30 million per year. Earlier this year it sanctioned investment of £12 million in further development work at the profitable Betws anthracite mine only about 10 miles from Brynlliw. This will lead to more jobs, some of which could be filled by men from the Brynlliw colliery.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the CEGB's acceptance of coal from Brynlliw. While the CEGB claims that it could accept Brynlliw coal if prepared to the required quality specification, there is the recognised need to safeguard other Welsh collieries which could also meet CEGB specifications, at much lower costs. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Brynlliw is not the only CEGB source of coal for Aberforth. It could be produced from other Welsh mines at much less cost. The board must consider factors such as that in making its decisions.
As the hon. Gentleman has so fairly set out, in view of that position it is not surprising that the history of the Brynlliw mine has led to a series of special meetings under the colliery review procedure. Under this procedure, introduced in 1973 by agreement between the board and the unions, each of the board's 12 area directors reviews the performance of every colliery in his area at regular intervals.
There was a reconvened meeting on Brynlliw/Morlais in May 1979 and in January 1981 at a general review meeting the position was noted as being extremely serious. On 13 February 1981 the area director told the unions that he proposed to close the combined pit, along with four others, as soon as possible. Following the tripartite meeting in February 1981, at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who was then Secretary of State for Energy, agreed to review the finances of the board, the proposal was withdrawn and discussions continued under the review procedure. As a result of those discussions, the Morlais section closed in May 1981.
By December 1982 the operating results being obtained prompted the area director to ask for a further reconvened review meeting, which was held on 21 March 1983. This meeting decided to set up the joint investigation to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the results of that investigation were discussed at a review meeting on 3 May. At the end of that meeting the area director said that Brynlliw was one of the most serious problems facing the south Wales coalfield, although everyone involved had made every effort to improve results. He said that the area management would now make its own evaluation of the position and report back to a further reconvened meeting.
That further meeting was held on 14 June. The area director said that he had no alternative but to recommend closure. However, every man at Brynlliw who wished to transfer to another colliery would be offered a job. For those who did not wish to remain in the industry the terms financed by the Government under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme would be available. No one would become unemployed against his will.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Union of Mineworkers has appealed to the board at national level against that decision and I understand that the appeal will be heard on 16 August. If, following the appeal, the board confirms that the colliery must close, I think that the account that I have given shows that this will not be an arbitrary or capricious decision. I would emphasise, though, that the decision is the board's and not the Government' s.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, on the Government Bench, despite the lateness of the hour, to show his Department's concern about this important matter. It is, of course, for the board to manage the industry. In present circumstances, that must mean taking action to deal with loss-making pits that can never return to viability. The Board has said, however, that it aims to deal with the problem in a humane manner, with proper respect for men who have perhaps spent a lifetime in the industry. As Sir Norman Siddall said last week, cooperation and not confrontation is the way to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped I would offer more than sympathy. I must inform him that my contribution to the debate has sought to set out the facts against which a difficult decision has to be taken. Decisions will inevitably involve, I trust, sympathetic judgment, because that is the correct way for management to proceed, but I think that even the hon. Gentleman will recognise that sometimes decisions are inevitable in view of the facts that the board has to face. That is a matter for the board, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I personally will send to Norman Siddall, the chairman of the board, the Official Report of today's debate to emphasise the fact that the hon. Member for Gower has raised in detail the problem of Brynlliw and that I in my turn, as the Minister responsible at the Department of Energy, have put before the House the important considerations that ought to be taken into account before the decision is finally made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Four o'clock am.